Why Bush Will Lose

[MODU]

You seem completely oblivious to facts.

First, it is his postions which make Kerry a liberal.  Those specific positions are opposed by the majority of Americans.  This is why Kerry is running away from his liberalism, which you are kind enought to acknowledge.

Second, in trying to run away from his past without plausible explanation, Kerry appears deceitful, which he is.  The American people won't vote for him for this reason as well.

Agreed.  It's best to stick with an ideal and stand up for your convictions.  Having a priciple, even an incorrect one, is better than being a flip-flopper.

Here's a decent article relating to the topic:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000574789

[ThePrezMex]

I. THE "MOOD" OF THE ELECTORATE
Although its tough to say how the electorates "mood" will be come late October, as it stands now moving into mid-July, I believe these are probably the most damning factors against a Bush re-election unless he can change them....and soon.

ANTI-INCUMBANT MOOD???
There may be some evidence that there is an anti incumbant party mood in the electorate.....maybe.

I site the two special house elections which both went for the Democrats, and the following polls on the question of "Whom are you more likely to support in the upcoming Congressional elections":

-IPOS poll since Febuary have an average 4% Dem lead.
-NBC/WSJ since January has an average 2% Dem lead.
-Democracy Corp since Jan has an average 3.6% Dem lead.
- Battleground's March poll had a 7% Dem lead, and Junes poll showed an 8% Dem lead.

In no poll that I have seen since at least March do the Republicans ever lead the Democrats.

I personally feel that this may be reflective of the electorates well known penchant for preferring that all branches of the government not be in the hands of a single party. However, that said, the question remains how far will that bleed over into the presidential vote? Based on the above it appears the president will at least have no coatails.

It is difficult to correlate Congressional preference to outcomes. In 2002 most polls showed a preference for generic Democrats, yet the GOP gained seats. There are a couple of factors at work here.

1) The poll is national but the elections are winner take all in each district. The poll would only be predictive if the Congress were elected at large on a proportional voting system. The prediction fails because there are D districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat in the inner cities. There are no rural Republican districts that can match theseity districts. The effect is that the Democrat vote is overconcentrated in their best districts.

2) Generic candidates are not real candidates. In particular, real challengers always underperform the generic challenger. Real challengers cannot please all those who might be open to change, so not all those who are open to change actually change.

Very Good Points......

I think you can use the generic congressional poll as an indicator of the general feeling of the nation and it kind of works well, you just need to make the correct interpretation. For whatever technical reason that the poll experts in the forum can explain, the generic congressional poll is skewed in favor of the democrats, thus, while monitoring it, if the Republicans are leading it or it is a draw, then you can believe that Republicans have a momentum towards a majority. If the Democrats are solidly ahead, the same case for Democrats. A Democratic advantage of less than five or eight points, could lead you to believe that the race is essentially tied.
It won't give you of course the exact number of seats, but can help you determine the most competitive districts and states.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You seem completely oblivious to facts.

First, it is his postions which make Kerry a liberal.  Those specific positions are opposed by the majority of Americans.  This is why Kerry is running away from his liberalism, which you are kind enought to acknowledge.

Second, in trying to run away from his past without plausible explanation, Kerry appears deceitful, which he is.  The American people won't vote for him for this reason as well.

Agreed.  It's best to stick with an ideal and stand up for your convictions.  Having a priciple, even an incorrect one, is better than being a flip-flopper.

Here's a decent article relating to the topic:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000574789

I'm not all that impressed with Kerry's ideological stands.  But I'd claim that Kerry's personality flaws will hurt him much more with swing voters than his Senate voting record.

For instance, Kerry  can't seem to give a straight answer on anything.  But I don't think this is necessarily a sign of him running away from his ideology.  Rather, its just that he's mucked up in Senate-speak and is not a very good sound-byte campaigner.  He also naturally thinks that every issue is complicated, and always wants to communicate that he understands the complication by speaking in conditionals and abstractions.   I think that Kerry's campaign message geuinely reflects his ideology, it's just way too hard to figure out what that message is.

Edwards doesn't have this problem.  He is also a liberal, but phrases his beliefs in a way that sound both clear and moderate.   Kerry's ability to make everything sound complicated may reflect into a weakness in Edwards, making Edwards look naive and unprepared.  But Edwards won't be damaged by the "liberal" label because he connects with voters personally.

[khirkhib]

Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12conservative.html

Will the Bush social conservative base not vote if he doesn't give them air time or is Bush wisely avoiding the mistakes of his father.


Kerrys Call Questions About Wealth Hypocritical
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12kerry.html

This one is really upsetting me.  I heard on talk radio the other day "you can't trust Kerry and Edwards because they are millionaires"  but so are Bush and Cheney and others in the cabinet.  Does anyone know the estimates of the fortunes of all of these people.  Hell so is Ralph Nader.


Bush's  shows assets worth between 6 - 13.7 million

Cheney shows assets worth between 17 - 85 million

Powell shows assets worth between 18 - 65 million

Rumsfeld shows assets worth between 50 - 210 million

Kerry shows assets of  6.8 million

Heinz however has assets worth at least 197 million to perhaps 1 billion

Edwards shows assets worth at least 19 million

Dean shows assets worth between 2.2 - 5.9 million

Nader's financial disclosure statement  says he is worth 3.8 million

However don't worry we have a common man candidate.
Kucinich has assets worth between $2002 - $32000 including his used subaru.

This information is difficult to collect but a multi-millionaire is a multi-millionaire it is hard to imagine that they are greedy enough to point fingers and say but Heinz she's a billionaire, she's the elite, we are just like Joe Schmoe voter.

[??????????]

It just proves something we already know. They are ALL filthy rich. Lets beat a dead horse ok?

[MODU]

General concensus:
Edwards wealth is $16-60 Million.  
Bush wealth is $8-22 Million.
Cheney is $19-87 Million.
Kerry is $12Mill - $1+ Billion (some analysts think it's near $3Bill)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12conservative.html

Will the Bush social conservative base not vote if he doesn't give them air time or is Bush wisely avoiding the mistakes of his father.


Kerrys Call Questions About Wealth Hypocritical
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12kerry.html

This one is really upsetting me.  I heard on talk radio the other day "you can't trust Kerry and Edwards because they are millionaires"  but so are Bush and Cheney and others in the cabinet.  Does anyone know the estimates of the fortunes of all of these people.  Hell so is Ralph Nader.


Bush's  shows assets worth between 6 - 13.7 million

Cheney shows assets worth between 17 - 85 million

Powell shows assets worth between 18 - 65 million

Rumsfeld shows assets worth between 50 - 210 million

Kerry shows assets of  6.8 million

Heinz however has assets worth at least 197 million to perhaps 1 billion

Edwards shows assets worth at least 19 million

Dean shows assets worth between 2.2 - 5.9 million

Nader's financial disclosure statement  says he is worth 3.8 million

However don't worry we have a common man candidate.
Kucinich has assets worth between $2002 - $32000 including his used subaru.

This information is difficult to collect but a multi-millionaire is a multi-millionaire it is hard to imagine that they are greedy enough to point fingers and say but Heinz she's a billionaire, she's the elite, we are just like Joe Schmoe voter.

Kucinich doesn't own a house or condo?  So what does he do with his salary?   That vegan diet must be really expensive!

Also, Rumsfeld must have made a huge salary from those drug companies....who knew they paid so much better than the oil industry!

[mddem2004]

Another reason that supports my argument this election is Kerry's to lose, not Bush's to win, especially being an incumbant.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/21/partisan/index_np.html

Just click through the salon ad to get a one day pass to read the whole article.....fairly good analysis, I have some problems with it, but on balance I think they got it right.

[HockeyDude]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?  Why is it ok to have a conserative president, but everyone expects Kerry to shy away from that "liberal" label.  What this country needs is a true liberal who can admit what he/she is and not back down to criticism.  

[??????????]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?  Why is it ok to have a conserative president, but everyone expects Kerry to shy away from that "liberal" label.  What this country needs is a true liberal who can admit what he/she is and not back down to criticism.  

Because if Americans connect in their minds the true meaning of "liberal" they would run like deer away from the Democratic party.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?  Why is it ok to have a conserative president, but everyone expects Kerry to shy away from that "liberal" label.  What this country needs is a true liberal who can admit what he/she is and not back down to criticism.  

A very legitimate question.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, 'liberal' was a politically admired description in this country.

At that time, 'liberals' favored limited government, low taxes, etc.

In recent years 'liberal' has come to mean someone who wants more government and higher taxes.  They want more regulation of just about every aspect of society.  Liberals tend to blame society when a criminal commits a crime, whereas conservatives tend to blame the criminal for his/her act.  Liberals tend to favor federal government action over state and local actions (conservatvies the opposite).  Liberals tend to look with distaste at popular sovereignty (they prefer judicial legislation), which is exactly the opposite of the position they took sixty years ago.

I could go on, but, the basic meaning of the term 'liberal' is far different from that of sixty or more years ago.  Its the policies advocated by liberals that give 'liberal' the approbrium which is currently associated with that term.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks.

I am waiting for the diatribes for my posting of election predictions (2004 user predictions on the forum, as compared to the map/electoral college).

Would appreciate your considered analysis.

[Lunar]

They want more regulation of just about every aspect of society.  

Economically, yes, we favor more regulation.  Socially, we want less while conservatives want more (the difference between a conservative and a libertarian).

[HockeyDude]

Right Lunar, econonically liberals tend to want more gov't intervention, but who're ones crying "censor this, censor that" whenever some moron kid commits a crime.  What party tends to want to control your PERSONAL life more.  I disagree States.  The more people find out what liberal really is, the more people will like it.  Right now it seems they just eqate it with irresponsibily and crazy leftists like Micheal Moore.  (although i don't think he's crazy)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets see.

Example one:

Should admissions to college/law school/medical school be based on ability or race?

Liberals tend to agree that racial preferences should be provided (there are some liberals who courageously differer from this consensus).

Conservatives overwhelming agree that individuals should be considered on their merits, not their race.

Example two:

Also, liberals tend to favor attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.  They want more and more regulations.

Conservatives tend to support the right to keep and bear arms.

Example three:

Should the voters (or their delegates, the legislators) decide on public policy such a 'gay marriage'?

Liberals tend to prefer for the courts to legislate in this matter, while conservatives overwhelming prefer the people or their legislators (in states without initiative/referendum) decide the matter.

Example four:

Liberals tend to oppose restrictions on abortion like banning partial birth abortion.  

Conservatives overwhelming favor banning partial birth abortion.

I could give you other examples, but this response would grow too long.

Please note that I used the word "tend" and do not mean to suggest that all liberals favor the policies cited, but that most self-described liberals do favor those policies.

T

[Lunar]

Liberals DO tend to be more for drug legalization.  Find me a greenie who's not for it, heh.

Examples three and four are part of my own point about social regulation.  A conservative would prefer to ban partial birth abortions, as you pointed out.  A liberal would rather let the mother in question make the decision for herself.  (I'm in favor of partial birth abortions)

A conservative is in favor of the government deciding who can and can't marry while a huge portion of liberals don't want the government involved in marriage at all, leaving that to the churches.

Guns (example 2) would be the primary exception.  There are, of course, many examples.  Sodomy laws, for example,  are far more likely to be supported by conservatives, restricting what you can and can't do in your own bedroom with a consenting adult.

This is what a political compass looks like (the red dot isn't me):

The %'s represent social and economic freedom.

[Lunar]

Only the top comment was adressed to you.  In general, lefties would be more inclined towards drug legalization.  Unfortunately, politics seem to have scared most politicians away from voicing dissent against the war on drugs.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:

Liberals DO tend to be more for drug legalization.  Find me a greenie who's not for it, heh.

I reply:

I suggest the primary motivation for many conservatives opposing drug legalization is that the do not understand that it would reduce maa in se crime (they tend to erroneously believe it would increase crime).

You said:

 A conservative would prefer to ban partial birth abortions, as you pointed out.  A liberal would rather let the mother in question make the decision for herself.  (I'm in favor of partial birth abortions)

I reply:

Just a few years ago so-called 'pro-choicers' were arguing that the right to life of a child began at birth, now, with partial birth abortion they have pushed that envelope back.  This should terrify anyone.

You said:

A conservative is in favor of the government deciding who can and can't marry while a huge portion of liberals don't want the government involved in marriage at all, leaving that to the churches.

I reply:

Remember the mass 'gay marriages' of just a couple of months ago.  They were civil, in the most part, not religious.

You said:

Guns (example 2) would be the primary exception.  

I reply:

Can I take that as an admission that liberals tend to believe in attacking the right to keep and bear arms?  Your respose seems a little ambigious.

You posted;

This is what a political compass looks like (the red dot isn't me):

The %'s represent social and economic freedom.

I reply:

I was familiar with the libertarian two dimesional system long ago,  and my belief in individual freedom is quite strong (both economic and social).

The phrasing of some of the questions in the guide, IMHO, needs a little refining.

[mddem2004]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?    

Frankly because we have allowed the Right for the past 25 years to define what Liberal means. We have allowed for far too long "Goebel" like mouthpieces such as the Limbaugh's and Hannitys of the world to type cast and steriotype what a "Liberal" is. And or course we on the Left have failed to effectively articulate ourselves just what Liberalism is in todays world.

Case in point, although I respect CARLHADEN, StatesRights, or others to offer their thoughts on what they view "Liberals" to be, I think maybe a better and more accurate definition may come from someone who actually considers himself, unashamably, to be a Liberal. I would not presume to speak for their beliefs if the question was "Why does Conservative have such a bad connotation?" I won't attempt to define them here, and I won't presume to speak for all "Liberals" either.

As for myself I have for several years crystalised my own political beliefs around this basic central tenant:

"Capitalism left unchecked by Socialism is immoral; and Socialism is unsustainable without the support and innovation of Capitalism".
The two are necessary, in balance, for a just and equitable society that allows one to excell based on their own abilities, yet safeguards those that are the weakest among us.

Yes, I unashamably use that much maligned and misunderstood word Socialism. Socialism, to me, in America are those things such as:
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Workers Compensation, the GI Bill, support for Public Education, Unemployment Insurance, Public Utility Regulation, Environmental Regulation, Fair Labor Standards, Farm Subsidies, etc, etc, etc

Basically, those things that Capitalism and the free market itself will not provide for or are required as safeguards to unchecked Capitalism.

And yet I firmly support free market Capitalism as long as the excesses of capitalism are restrained or contained so as not to harm the general public good. I am all for someone to make as much money as they can as long as its not at the direct expense or detriment to someone else or the welfare of the general public.

It is the balance of these two concepts, Capitalism vs. Socialism, that define my view of what it means to be a "Liberal". An honest realization that in our country we are truly "all in the same boat", Rich and Poor, White and Black, Gay or Straight, Rural or Urban, Religious and Atheist, Young and Old......and the balancing of these competing needs, wants, desires, aspirations, beliefs, for the benefit of the American Society as a whole....to ensure that fairness and just standards are applied so that one competing need does not dominate to the detriment of the other......that is how I define (at least in general terms) "My" Liberalism.  

I unashamably view that government can and must be used as the instument to "balance" these competing elements or to provide those things a free market can not. I am not for, as any good Conservative will try to paint us on the left, for regulation for the sake of regulation. I view that regulation should be as pragmatic as possible and if it doesn't work - get rid of it and try something else. Pragmatism, Pragmatism, Pragmatism......above all else, Pragmatism.

More specically, some of my views are:
I am pro-choice - Promote all you can abstenance, adoption, contraception all you can, and be honest and open with your kids about sex....but the final decision should be left to the individual based on their own moral judgements, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I support Gun Control, yet I also support the "priveledge" to own and bear arms. I have some real problems with the Right in their assertion that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected "Right". I support the current level of Federal gun control measures, (I hope Bush and the Republicans do NOT let the assault weapons ban expire this Sept......but they will) the rest should be left to the states. Idaho doesn't need the level of control that  DC has. To own a gun is a priveledge in my view however - not a protected "Right".  

Gay Marriage - Doesn't threaten my marriage to my wife (or anyone elses frankly) and if my 2 young daughters turn out to be lesbian i'm not going to love them any less. I would not presume to tell them they could not recieve the same benefits, protections, and joys of marriage that my wife and I enjoy. A constitutional ban is a joke.

And CARLHAYDEN, your comments on Liberals preferring decisions as these to be decided more in the courts than by ones representatives/legislators is well taken. I would prefer that most decisions are made by our elected officials. However, there are times in our country that the "Majority" can become the "Tyranny of the Majority". Consider if you would, if questions like Brown vs. B.of Ed. were left to the "Majority", or those decisions that stuck down the bans on inter-racial marriages in some states were left to the "Majority".....would we be where we are today? I think for the most part our courts get it right.....with a few notable exceptions (Can you say Dred Scott?!)

War on Drugs - Pretty much a failure, at least in our approach. I'm not for the legalization of drugs, but certainly for the "de-criminalization" of some - primarily marijuanna. Education and taking the profit motive out of the drug trade should be the main thrust of our policy. We should stop the wrecking of lives with our current "lock em all up" approach.

Capital Punishment - Support it in some cases yet believe it has been used far too liberally in the past. I DO NOT think that capital punishment is a deterrent however. I'm leaning toward the view that without DNA evidence to a crime, it should not be used at all.

Use of Force/Foreign Policy/Relations with the UN, etc - I am an internationalist. I firmly believe that collective action in the future will be absolutely vital to tackel problems such as Terrorism, Global Warming, World Trade that is "Fair" trade,  AIDS, etc. Does that mean we have to cede our soverienty to a world body? Of course not. But in an increasingly smaller and more interconnected world, the worlds problems are going to be our problems as well. It is up to us to lead the world, to bring them to our view, to take their view into consideration and to YES.......COMPROMISE on occasion. Does that mean compromise our security....no.....but to isolate ourselves and to pursue only our own self interests, in the long term makes us less secure.

I do support what in my view is our morale obligation to use force for purely humanitarian reasons IF..... IF, it is possible to do so without the destabilization of other regions, has aims that are clearly defined, AND does not threaten our long term security. Iraq fails all three of these.

Unlike what the Right would like you to believe, most Liberals do support a strong military. You will be hard pressed to find a Liberal that supports our military and our need to remain a superpower militarily more than I. However, I do have a very healthy skeptasism of our governments cozy relationship with the military/industrial complex. I also believe that the way we procure most of our military hardware is way overdue for an overhaul. More money to the Pentagon doesn't always mean a better and more efficient military. I want "Bang" for the Buck.....literally.....and there is still way too many areas of waste.  

I support a progressive tax code, AND I do believe the upper 2% of income earners should be paying more in taxes.

I do not believe in privatising Social Security, we have an obligation, as a Nation, to guaruntee a basic minimal level of support in retirement, even if we in the future need to raise the tax level.

I do not believe in publicly funded school vouchers. Only takes money out of a cash starved system to serve a system that is suppoted by those that can afford it. Reform from within and demand results.

And yet......I am a balanced budget freak! If you spend public funds you have to have the tax base to support it...or....cut spending. The Right has it all ass backwards.....you cut spending first or at least on a one for one basis, not taxes first that produce deficits. Only creates more debt and pressure on the long term health on the economy as a whole.  

This was not intended to be an all inclusive (although the length may seem to belie my assertion) expose on all my views of what it is to be a Liberal, but certainly it should serve as a better basis point than some tiring and rather old generalizations by those on the Right who attempt to define those other than themselves.

 


 

[classical liberal]

The Democrats on House Ways and Means are pushing a flat tax and a balanced budget.  If the GOP keeps ceeding Fiscal Conservatism to the Dems, I'm going to have to switch parties.

[??????????]

The Democrats on House Ways and Means are pushing a flat tax and a balanced budget.  If the GOP keeps ceeding Fiscal Conservatism to the Dems, I'm going to have to switch parties.

All you seem to be worried about is the budget. What about the very threat to our existence that appears to be the agenda of those on the left. You know, lose of gun rights, lack of any responsiblity for personal actions.

[12th Doctor]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?    

Frankly because we have allowed the Right for the past 25 years to define what Liberal means. We have allowed for far too long "Goebel" like mouthpieces such as the Limbaugh's and Hannitys of the world to type cast and steriotype what a "Liberal" is. And or course we on the Left have failed to effectively articulate ourselves just what Liberalism is in todays world.

Case in point, although I respect CARLHADEN, StatesRights, or others to offer their thoughts on what they view "Liberals" to be, I think maybe a better and more accurate definition may come from someone who actually considers himself, unashamably, to be a Liberal. I would not presume to speak for their beliefs if the question was "Why does Conservative have such a bad connotation?" I won't attempt to define them here, and I won't presume to speak for all "Liberals" either.

As for myself I have for several years crystalised my own political beliefs around this basic central tenant:

"Capitalism left unchecked by Socialism is immoral; and Socialism is unsustainable without the support and innovation of Capitalism".
The two are necessary, in balance, for a just and equitable society that allows one to excell based on their own abilities, yet safeguards those that are the weakest among us.

Yes, I unashamably use that much maligned and misunderstood word Socialism. Socialism, to me, in America are those things such as:
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Workers Compensation, the GI Bill, support for Public Education, Unemployment Insurance, Public Utility Regulation, Environmental Regulation, Fair Labor Standards, Farm Subsidies, etc, etc, etc

Basically, those things that Capitalism and the free market itself will not provide for or are required as safeguards to unchecked Capitalism.

And yet I firmly support free market Capitalism as long as the excesses of capitalism are restrained or contained so as not to harm the general public good. I am all for someone to make as much money as they can as long as its not at the direct expense or detriment to someone else or the welfare of the general public.

It is the balance of these two concepts, Capitalism vs. Socialism, that define my view of what it means to be a "Liberal". An honest realization that in our country we are truly "all in the same boat", Rich and Poor, White and Black, Gay or Straight, Rural or Urban, Religious and Atheist, Young and Old......and the balancing of these competing needs, wants, desires, aspirations, beliefs, for the benefit of the American Society as a whole....to ensure that fairness and just standards are applied so that one competing need does not dominate to the detriment of the other......that is how I define (at least in general terms) "My" Liberalism.  

I unashamably view that government can and must be used as the instument to "balance" these competing elements or to provide those things a free market can not. I am not for, as any good Conservative will try to paint us on the left, for regulation for the sake of regulation. I view that regulation should be as pragmatic as possible and if it doesn't work - get rid of it and try something else. Pragmatism, Pragmatism, Pragmatism......above all else, Pragmatism.

More specically, some of my views are:
I am pro-choice - Promote all you can abstenance, adoption, contraception all you can, and be honest and open with your kids about sex....but the final decision should be left to the individual based on their own moral judgements, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I support Gun Control, yet I also support the "priveledge" to own and bear arms. I have some real problems with the Right in their assertion that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected "Right". I support the current level of Federal gun control measures, (I hope Bush and the Republicans do NOT let the assault weapons ban expire this Sept......but they will) the rest should be left to the states. Idaho doesn't need the level of control that  DC has. To own a gun is a priveledge in my view however - not a protected "Right".  

Gay Marriage - Doesn't threaten my marriage to my wife (or anyone elses frankly) and if my 2 young daughters turn out to be lesbian i'm not going to love them any less. I would not presume to tell them they could not recieve the same benefits, protections, and joys of marriage that my wife and I enjoy. A constitutional ban is a joke.

And CARLHAYDEN, your comments on Liberals preferring decisions as these to be decided more in the courts than by ones representatives/legislators is well taken. I would prefer that most decisions are made by our elected officials. However, there are times in our country that the "Majority" can become the "Tyranny of the Majority". Consider if you would, if questions like Brown vs. B.of Ed. were left to the "Majority", or those decisions that stuck down the bans on inter-racial marriages in some states were left to the "Majority".....would we be where we are today? I think for the most part our courts get it right.....with a few notable exceptions (Can you say Dred Scott?!)

War on Drugs - Pretty much a failure, at least in our approach. I'm not for the legalization of drugs, but certainly for the "de-criminalization" of some - primarily marijuanna. Education and taking the profit motive out of the drug trade should be the main thrust of our policy. We should stop the wrecking of lives with our current "lock em all up" approach.

Capital Punishment - Support it in some cases yet believe it has been used far too liberally in the past. I DO NOT think that capital punishment is a deterrent however. I'm leaning toward the view that without DNA evidence to a crime, it should not be used at all.

Use of Force/Foreign Policy/Relations with the UN, etc - I am an internationalist. I firmly believe that collective action in the future will be absolutely vital to tackel problems such as Terrorism, Global Warming, World Trade that is "Fair" trade,  AIDS, etc. Does that mean we have to cede our soverienty to a world body? Of course not. But in an increasingly smaller and more interconnected world, the worlds problems are going to be our problems as well. It is up to us to lead the world, to bring them to our view, to take their view into consideration and to YES.......COMPROMISE on occasion. Does that mean compromise our security....no.....but to isolate ourselves and to pursue only our own self interests, in the long term makes us less secure.

I do support what in my view is our morale obligation to use force for purely humanitarian reasons IF..... IF, it is possible to do so without the destabilization of other regions, has aims that are clearly defined, AND does not threaten our long term security. Iraq fails all three of these.

Unlike what the Right would like you to believe, most Liberals do support a strong military. You will be hard pressed to find a Liberal that supports our military and our need to remain a superpower militarily more than I. However, I do have a very healthy skeptasism of our governments cozy relationship with the military/industrial complex. I also believe that the way we procure most of our military hardware is way overdue for an overhaul. More money to the Pentagon doesn't always mean a better and more efficient military. I want "Bang" for the Buck.....literally.....and there is still way too many areas of waste....  etc.

Well, from 70-30 years ago, people were ashmed to be known as Conservatives.  No one would admit that they were conservative.  It seems to have gone full circle.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Just a question? Why does liberal have such a bad connotation?    

You said:

Unlike what the Right would like you to believe, most Liberals do support a strong military.

I reply:

I suggest you take a look at the votes of Members of Congress (both house and senate).  Take only the votes of those members that both the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU) agree are clearly liberal or conservative and you will find that liberals overwhelmingly have voted to reduce the capabilies of the armed forces whereas conservatives have largely voted to maintain or increase those capabilities.

There is other, non-statistical evidence to support this analysis (just about everyone has seen or heard of one example of a liberal disparaging the armed forces, but I don't recall a single example of  conservatives making such comments).

You said:

You will be hard pressed to find a Liberal that supports our military and our need to remain a superpower militarily more than I.    

I reply:

Good for you.  The late and great Sen. Henry 'Scoop' Jackson epitomized that viewpoint.

I hope you support the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Absent an interception system, rogue states such as North Korea are gaining the capacity to hit parts of the United States with nuclear weapons.  Given that such rogue states are NOT reasonable, the old formula of Mutually Assured Destruction is unliklely to work with them.

Moreover, I agree with Reagan that defense which protects our people is morally preferable to merely retaliating against a foe.