I'm growing increasingly depressed about 2004

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It is becoming more and more evident that Kerry is a shifty, spineless Northern elitist who changes his positions whenever it is politically expedient for him to do so.  He turned his back on the men he fought with in Vietnam by making false allegations of war crimes (which he later retracted), and then had the audacity to make his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his 2004 campaign.  He was utterly useless in the Senate, where he accomplished nothing.  If elected President he is going to be thrown about by the political tides, and provide no sort of leadership for this country whatsoever.  And given what America is facing right now, that's just plain frightening.

And then we have George W. Bush and his band of war-happy, police-happy neo-conservatives, who have done exactly jack for our economy.  IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS NOW SINCE THE RECESSION STARTED!  At some point it's time to stop blaming Clinton and start turning things around.  I'm sorry that the fact that your tax relief didn't solve the problem doesn't fit nicely into your ideology, but maybe, just maybe, it's time to forget about ideology for a moment and try another approach.  And to top it off, not only has our economy clearly NOT recovered, but our defecit has EXPLODED as well!  Hooray for so-called fiscally conservative Republicans.

And as far as Badnarik goes, I'm not voting for anyone who wants to privatize our education system, and thinks that general practitioners are better than the FDA in deciding what medications are right for their patients.  He's an extremist nutball.  It would be the perfect "punish Bush" vote otherwise, but as it is, I'm still left with nothing.

What exactly am I supposed to do?  I'm currently leaning towards Bush, because at least we know what we'll get.  Kerry is frightening.

Help.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well like you said earlier, there's still going to be a GOP Congress. So at least Kerry will have a foil. Bush will not.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well like you said earlier, there's still going to be a GOP Congress. So at least Kerry will have a foil. Bush will not.

He'll have a foil for his politics.  Not for his leadership.  Kerry's liberalness is not the issue here.  As far as his political positions go, I can live with that.  No, the problem is that America needs a leader and a commander-in-chief.  Bush has proven he's able to do the job.  He can stand up to political pressure and do what he thinks is right (whether I believe in what he does or not, this is still an admirable quality).  Kerry has no spine.  No conviction.  And that is what frightens me.

I can see it now:
Jan, 2005: Kerry commits to pulling the troops out of Iraq.
Feb, 2005: Kerry changes his mind, because his advisors explain to him the consequences of pulling out.
Mar, 2005: Things go badly in Iraq, Kerry decides once again to pull out
Apr, 2005: No, wait, we're staying.
May, 2005: Thanks to Kerry's indecision, things get even bloodier, as insurgents and terrorists figure out they can get Kerry to buckle under, unlike Bush...

Is this the sort of thing you want to live with for the next four years?

[Nym90]

When has Bush ever stood up to the big corporations? Not once. He is a complete stooge of big money.

Kerry will have the moral authority to stand up to them, and not allow them to run our foreign policy. He will seek out alternative energy sources to provide us with an alternative to supporting terrorist sponsoring states such as Saudi Arabia. That is the only way to ultimately win the war on terror; we must have a morally consistent foreign policy that doesn't coddle dictators because it is in the best interests of business.

Also, he will hopefully reduce our dependence on China, which along with North Korea looms as the next big threat along with terrorism. Both parties are pretty guilty here, but at least the Democrats aren't quite as bad in letting China do whatever they want and ignoring human rights abuses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'll take it over all the major blundering Bush would do, and him probably dragging the military even to other locations, making pointless threats and just taking the world against the US even more.

But Kerry has said he's not pulling out now, so I don't see why he'd say he would in January of 2005. I doubt it'd be anything like that, more than likely the Iraq situation would improve since other countries would be much more likely to lend help without Bush in office.

[Fritz]

I don't think it will be like that at all.  Kerry does have a spine, and I think he has shown he is up to the job of being commander-in-chief.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

When has Bush ever stood up to the big corporations? Not once. He is a complete stooge of big money.

He believes that what is good for industry is good for the economy.  I happen to agree.

Kerry will have the moral authority to stand up to them, and not allow them to run our foreign policy.

Big money is not running our foreign policy.  Neo-conservative ideology is.  I am not so paranoid as to think we went to war in Iraq so that we could then give no-bid contracts to Haliburton.  That was just a happy coincidence.

He will seek out alternative energy sources to provide us with an alternative

You realize that this is decades off.  Solar won't work, wind won't work.  We need cheap combustible fuel to run our transportation infrastructure.  Petroleum is our only choice for a long, long time.  And Bush is on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This complaint about Bush is utterly without merit.  The Bush administration is working towards alternative energy.  But it's going to take a while.  Of course, liberals are not known to be swayed by pesky things like facts.

to supporting terrorist sponsoring states such as Saudi Arabia.  That is the only way to ultimately win the war on terror; we must have a morally consistent foreign policy that doesn't coddle dictators because it is in the best interests of business.

The political pressure will be too great for Kerry ever to go against Saudi Arabia - which is not a terrorist sponsoring state, but is a big part of the problem.  They have too much oil, and we are too dependent on them ever to stand up to them.  Our friends in the region are few and far between, and we need the Saudis.  It's sad, but it's life.

Also, he will hopefully reduce our dependence on China, which along with North Korea looms as the next big threat along with terrorism. Both parties are pretty guilty here, but at least the Democrats aren't quite as bad in letting China do whatever they want and ignoring human rights abuses.

Did you live through the Clinton Administration at all?  Could there have been a bigger friend of China than the Clinton White House?

[The Duke]

Neocons do not run the foreign policy.  The complaints I had about Bush earlier are typical neocon complaints about realpolitik foreign policy.  I think Nym's suggestion of big money is closer to the heart of the problem.

Name one neocon in the cabinet?  It isn't easy.
Name one former CEO in the cabinet?  It isn't hard.

[TeePee4Prez]

When has Bush ever stood up to the big corporations? Not once. He is a complete stooge of big money.

Kerry will have the moral authority to stand up to them, and not allow them to run our foreign policy. He will seek out alternative energy sources to provide us with an alternative to supporting terrorist sponsoring states such as Saudi Arabia. That is the only way to ultimately win the war on terror; we must have a morally consistent foreign policy that doesn't coddle dictators because it is in the best interests of business.

Also, he will hopefully reduce our dependence on China, which along with North Korea looms as the next big threat along with terrorism. Both parties are pretty guilty here, but at least the Democrats aren't quite as bad in letting China do whatever they want and ignoring human rights abuses.

Well said.  I must also add that why do so many people think Bush is the default man on terrorism?  If anything, he has worsened the problem by puitting copious resources towards Iraq and ignoring the problem on the global scale.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Neocons do not run the foreign policy.  The complaints I had about Bush earlier are typical neocon complaints about realpolitik foreign policy.  I think Nym's suggestion of big money is closer to the heart of the problem.

Name one neocon in the cabinet?

Rumsfeld.

[Nym90]

Beef--

A very good post, however, a few points.

I don't think that what's good for business is always good for the economy. Business puts profits ahead of people. Often the two coincide, but certainly not always.

No, we didn't go to war just for Halliburton, but that was a factor to be sure. Ford has a good point here...if the neocons were running things, we would be going into places like the Sudan, where there are human rights atrocities being committed...but there isn't much money to be made in the Sudan.

I don't see why alternatives to oil have to be decades off. If we were willing to spend more, we could get there faster...there is no reason why we MUST wait. Now, I know you are going to say right away "How are we going to pay for it?" which is a valid question, but our country has clearly shown a willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defeat terrorism if that's what it takes...instead of spending that money invading countries, a more productive use of it would be to spend more on energy research. We could eliminate our dependence on oil very quickly if we were willing to spend enough. It's something we have to do eventually anyway, so we might as well do it now when the threat of terrorism makes it even more urgent than it already was.

As for Bush's energy plan, I admit that I was not aware of it. I am glad to see it, and will have to look into the specifics of it more carefully. Until it actually gets proposed in front of Congress, however, it doesn't change my view much. It's something that's very important, and needs action, not just words. Words are a definite step in the right direction, and I am swayed by facts such as these, but it doesn't matter unless the bill actually gets proposed. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush plans on doing this soon...some specifics of when this will be enacted would be helpful.

I support most of the plan...is Bush going to try to tie it to drilling in the ANWR though? I wouldn't put it past him, to tie those together, knowing the bill will fail then. I'm just guessing though, I have no idea whether that's really his strategy or not.

You may, sadly, be right about Saudi Arabia, that Kerry might not stand up to them....on that I don't know. But at least there's a chance, since he wouldn't be as beholden to big oil as Bush. Make no mistake, I think the Democrats are guilty of this too...but at least there's more chance that Kerry would stand up to them than Bush. I am glad that you admit the core problem here, which is our dependence on oil...I don't believe that it's just something that we have to put up with and deal with, however. If we want to defeat terrorism we NEED to eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If that's something that we just can't bring ourselves to do, then we aren't going to defeat terrorism. Plain and simple. It's up to us as a nation to decide what is more important. No one ever said it would be easy.

And yes, Clinton's support of MFN trading status for China was the one thing that I liked least about him. That was a huge mistake. Clinton wanted to be a pro-business Democrat so that he could undercut the Republicans on that issue...but that was the WRONG issue to pick to decide to be more "moderate" on. Good political move, but very BAD otherwise.

That being said, I don't think that Kerry is as pro free-trade as Clinton...again, maybe he won't repeal MFN...we'll have to see, but at least there would be a chance. I would like to see Kerry's specific position on MFN, however. Time to do some more research on these points...thanks for bringing them to my attention.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef--

A very good post,

Thank you!

A bit flamish, I know.  I've been feeling feisty lately, and if it looks like I'm lashing out, don't take it personally.  When I attack liberal or conservative viewpoints, I'm talking about the mentality in general, not the individual.  I think your post, and your previous post in the thread are excellent - I just get carried away in debating things sometimes.

however, a few points.

I don't think that what's good for business is always good for the economy. Business puts profits ahead of people. Often the two coincide, but certainly not always.

Certainly not, but big business is much more beneficial to society than most left-wingers will admit.  George W. Bush is really rather middle of the road when it comes to business vs. worker interests, and while there is a lot of corporate influence in the cabinet, it doesn't trouble me nearly as much as it troubles some.

No, we didn't go to war just for Halliburton, but that was a factor to be sure. Ford has a good point here...if the neocons were running things, we would be going into places like the Sudan, where there are human rights atrocities being committed...but there isn't much money to be made in the Sudan.

Well, the thing is, there was a "foggy" threat posed by Iraq.  I think containment was the appropriate policy still, but one could argue that shifting political winds could, someday, leave us in a position in which Saddam could rebuild and then pose an immediate threat.  The Bush Doctrine, which I consider central to neocon ideology, is that security in the modern world requires pre-emption as soon as any kind of threat looms.

Contrast that with Sudan, which was not any kind of threat to our security.  Sudan may be on the long list of targets, but the short list is going to contain actual threats.  Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are/were our greatest threats.  That's the short list.  (Damn, I'm sounding like an apologist, when I don't mean to... just making the case that this is about neocon geopolitical strategy...)  Iraq is more of a threat than Iran, and a much easier target with fewer global consequences than N. Korea.  It was also believed by the neocons that bringing Democracy to Iraq would be key for the long-term stability of the region (absolutely asinine thinking, but this is what they truely believed).

The greatest threats are always going to have the most booty, because the greatest threats are the most powerful.  So you can't really make any conclusions simply from the fact that they choose targets with the most treasure and resources.

I don't see why alternatives to oil have to be decades off. If we were willing to spend more, we could get there faster...there is no reason why we MUST wait.

Well, we're not waiting.  Great advances are being made, especially in the field of biomass fuel.  But there are enormous hurtles to be jumped.  If you had to bet on renewable, domestic energy being here soon, or being decades off, the safer bet would be that we still have decades to go, and we should pursue a foreign policy that assumes we are dependent upon Middle Eastern oil.  Because, sadly enough, we are.

Now, I know you are going to say right away "How are we going to pay for it?" which is a valid question, but our country has clearly shown a willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defeat terrorism if that's what it takes...instead of spending that money invading countries, a more productive use of it would be to spend more on energy research.

I agree entirely, but where we disagree is that I don't think the root of the problem is Bush's marriage to Big Energy and unwillingness to consider alternatives.  I think the problem is the Administration's misguided belief that they can shape geopolitics to our benefit using military action.

I support most of the plan...is Bush going to try to tie it to drilling in the ANWR though? I wouldn't put it past him, to tie those together, knowing the bill will fail then. I'm just guessing though, I have no idea whether that's really his strategy or not.

Not knowing the true environmental ramifications of exploring in the ANWR (and finding non-biased information on the subject is next to impossible) I can't say how feasible such a plan is, whether Bush will really pursue it, and whether Congress will go for it.

That being said, I don't think that Kerry is as pro free-trade as Clinton...again, maybe he won't repeal MFN...we'll have to see, but at least there would be a chance. I would like to see Kerry's specific position on MFN, however.

Me too.

Time to do some more research on these points...thanks for bringing them to my attention.

 I'm very glad to.

The big issue, in my mind, is if John Kerry can lead this nation.  That's what's really bothering me.  I don't like Bush.  But I know our country won't fall apart under Bush either.  Kerry doesn't seem to have temperment to lead, the force of personality, and the conviction to maintain a consistent policy.  This does not bode well for our country.  I need to be convinced that I am wrong about him.

[John Dibble]

And as far as Badnarik goes, I'm not voting for anyone who wants to privatize our education system, and thinks that general practitioners are better than the FDA in deciding what medications are right for their patients.  He's an extremist nutball.  It would be the perfect "punish Bush" vote otherwise, but as it is, I'm still left with nothing.

Well, sorry you feel that way, but I understand. I'm not a big fan of privatizing education either, just lessening higher government's involvement in it. At least on the education he realizes it's states rights though, and the most he could possibly do in the unlikely event of being elected is get the federal government out of education.

[muon2]

Beef,

You make some very solid points about the candidates and their weaknesses. Philosophically, I just about match you on the Political Compass, so I understand how you see the shortfalls that you do.

A lot of debate is about who is running the White House - neocons or corporations. One thing to consider is that anyone who gets elected to an administrative post has a coalition of close allies. You can't get far any other way. Not only do they provide a base of ideas to campaign with, but they also will make up advisors after the fact.

Is this group a limited set? Often, but they have earned trust by the work they did through the election. Are there other voices that need to be heard? Sure, but it takes time to build the same level of trust, so of course new voices won't get the same attention.

One place that the legislature and parties come in is that they inform the executive of ideas that must be heard. These other ideas come forth because an executive wants to get legislation passed, which requires the legislature. Even within the same party the voices that get heard are different with different people. Consider McCain and Bush, who may not get along, but they both continue to operate in the GOP and that keeps a level of dialog going.

OK, that's pretty vague, so how do I tie it to this thread.

I think one key is the distinction between commander-in-chief and legislative executive. I know that the domestic initiatives from Bush may begin with a slant due to his closest advisors, but I also know that the Congress will get a full measure to work other ideas into each bill. ideas that represent a broader view. On the other hand the ability to make a command decision, and hold to it rests almost entirely with the President alone. I feel, as I think you do, that Bush shows this trait better than Kerry.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

And as far as Badnarik goes, I'm not voting for anyone who wants to privatize our education system, and thinks that general practitioners are better than the FDA in deciding what medications are right for their patients.  He's an extremist nutball.  It would be the perfect "punish Bush" vote otherwise, but as it is, I'm still left with nothing.

Well, sorry you feel that way, but I understand. I'm not a big fan of privatizing education either, just lessening higher government's involvement in it. At least on the education he realizes it's states rights though, and the most he could possibly do in the unlikely event of being elected is get the federal government out of education.

I don't think that bothered me as much as his feelings towards the FDA.

It's a shame he's so extreme on some issues, because in the radio interview I listened to, he gave one of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned positions on abortion that I have ever heard.  It's a position I agree with 100%.  (Badnarik is pro-life.)

[John Dibble]

And as far as Badnarik goes, I'm not voting for anyone who wants to privatize our education system, and thinks that general practitioners are better than the FDA in deciding what medications are right for their patients.  He's an extremist nutball.  It would be the perfect "punish Bush" vote otherwise, but as it is, I'm still left with nothing.

Well, sorry you feel that way, but I understand. I'm not a big fan of privatizing education either, just lessening higher government's involvement in it. At least on the education he realizes it's states rights though, and the most he could possibly do in the unlikely event of being elected is get the federal government out of education.

I don't think that bothered me as much as his feelings towards the FDA.

It's a shame he's so extreme on some issues, because in the radio interview I listened to, he gave one of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned positions on abortion that I have ever heard.  It's a position I agree with 100%.  (Badnarik is pro-life.)

Yeah, I know he's pro-life, and I have no problem with that.

I will agree he's extreme on some of his positions. I wouldn't call him a extremist nutball, or not a nutball anyways, just overly enthusiastic. In truth though, I also consider the fact that a president can only really deal with 3 or 4 issues on a large scale during a term, so I consider his big issues the more important ones to look at: decreasing gun control and general government spending seem to be his big things, both of which I'm for. Like I said, I understand why you feel the way you do. And Badnarik would have no problem with you voting for someone else - as he says, the candidates don't own your vote, you do.

[Beet]

Beef,

Kerry did a great deal in the Senate. He was focused around investigating corruption and financial crimes instead of passing legislation, including a major scandal involving a Pakistani bank with ties to drugs in the early 1990s. The Bush campaign would like to portray Kerry as someone who was not the biggest legislator, and this is true. But its been pointed out here on these boards that there's a difference between the qualities of a good legislator and those of a good executive-- somebody like Lyndon Johnson who was great at pushing through legislation wasn't so great when it came to handling Vietnam or national divisions. Perhaps Kerry focusing his Senate career on investigations of government rather than pushing through laws is not a bad thing. One of the primary things the current White House lacks is good intelligence. Here is an extensive article that came out a long time ago about Kerry's career in the Senate. I'm as surprised as most that he hasn't talked more about what he has done, I guess his campaign strategists are making some mistakes in this Dept.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0303/p02s01-uspo.html

[muon2]

Beef,

Kerry did a great deal in the Senate. He was focused around investigating corruption and financial crimes instead of passing legislation, including a major scandal involving a Pakistani bank with ties to drugs in the early 1990s. The Bush campaign would like to portray Kerry as someone who was not the biggest legislator, and this is true. But its been pointed out here on these boards that there's a difference between the qualities of a good legislator and those of a good executive-- somebody like Lyndon Johnson who was great at pushing through legislation wasn't so great when it came to handling Vietnam or national divisions. Perhaps Kerry focusing his Senate career on investigations of government rather than pushing through laws is not a bad thing. One of the primary things the current White House lacks is good intelligence. Here is an extensive article that came out a long time ago about Kerry's career in the Senate. I'm as surprised as most that he hasn't talked more about what he has done, I guess his campaign strategists are making some mistakes in this Dept.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0303/p02s01-uspo.html

I agree that Kerry's record in the Senate better fits his past as a prosecutor than moving into the role of a legislator. However, he had a chance, albeit short, to take on some administrative leadership while serving as Lt. Gov. Many in that position do chair activities that affect the executive branch, but Kerry still was more the prosecutor, as he made going after environmental issues his major accomplishment in that office.

[Brambila]

Though I think the economy could do better, it's actually doing quite well. Nonetheless, Bush is a moron.

[Niles Caulder]

No offense to anyone here, but I'm so nausiated by the buzzword "neo-con," which ultimately has no meaning other than the new and improved version of "imperialist."

I think both the candidates are underrated.  Both of them have certainly shifted positions at times (Bush's are just quieter--his opposition doesn't notice 'cos they assumed he was hugging the right wall the whole time anyway.)  But they're both adept consensus builders behind the scenes.

I think President Bush deserves a little slack when it comes to the economy.  The accounting scandals and 9/11 have had profound impacts in which the administration wasn't a factor.  Granted the Iraqi war is a primary psychological depressant, and that can be pinned squarely on Bush...but still--recent presidents had nowhere close to these conditions with which to deal.  And as George Will often points out, "There's not a kleenex's width of difference between these candidates positions on handling Iraq."

I think criticizing Kerry for his lack of "face time" in front of legislation is as sound as judging Bush's foreign policy skill because he ascended from a Governorship.  (Not very sound, imo.)

[NHPolitico]

When has Bush ever stood up to the big corporations? Not once. He is a complete stooge of big money.

Kerry will have the moral authority to stand up to them, and not allow them to run our foreign policy.

OMG, my sides hurt from laughing. You really think Kerry is a true agent of change?  He's not going to stand up to the moneyed interests that control our country. He's beholden to them, too. Don't be naïve.

[Nym90]

NHPolitico--

Only time will tell, and I do have reservations about Kerry to be sure, but at least he isn't supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. That alone makes a big difference in my mind.

[Blerpiez]

And as far as Badnarik goes, I'm not voting for anyone who wants to privatize our education system, and thinks that general practitioners are better than the FDA in deciding what medications are right for their patients.  He's an extremist nutball.  It would be the perfect "punish Bush" vote otherwise, but as it is, I'm still left with nothing.

Don't vote.  It's the perfect "punish everyone" vote

[Dr. Cynic]

I'd rather see Kerry, whose leadership I don't know of, instead of Bush's leadership, which is dislike, and don't trust.