When I was growing up in the 60's, the Democrats stood for expanded civil liberties, strong social safety nets, and peace. Clinton betrayed pretty much all that, and I switched from Democrat to Green in the late 90's. Back then, the Republicans stood for strong military, fiscal responsibility and good, small government. Bush betrayed every single one of those points. So Republicans have a choice. With regards to Bush weakening our military, he appeased the perpetrators and financers of 9/11, the Saudis. The facts are that 15 Saudi citizens did the deeds, and were funded by Saudi wealth, which also funds Hezbollah and Hamas. Instead of dealing with the Saudi problem head-on, Bush invades the wrong country, Iraq. In the mean time, a lobbyist on the Saudi government payroll named James Baker III had an office in the Bush White House. Baker makes more money if the information pertaining to 9/11 is suppressed in favor of the Saudis and to the detriment of the families of the victims of 9/11. Bush has appeased the enemy and lost two years in the war on . We can see that al Qaeda is still pretty much free to do what they want, when they want. With regards to Bush weakening our economy, the Treasury department under his watch has created false wealth. After introducing the largest economic stimulus package in history via tax cuts, government borrowing and artificially low interest rates, we are not seeing genuine wealth creation. We are only seeing wealth re-dstribution and the creation of more financial bubbles. The latest is the credit bubble, as total debt (public and private) has increased $6,500,000,000,000 since 2000. Two bad things about debt. First, you must give up assets in order to balance the accounting equation. Second, you are legally obligated to eventually pay them back. Sure, there is bancruptcy, but do you want to give up control of your economy to your creditors? That is what the current policies are doing. With regards to small, good government, all we need to do is think of the Patriot Act. Every Republican that I can talk to for more than seven minutes about politics agrees that this is a horrible piece of Federal legislation, and must be repealed. My broker (a 60-something year old Republican) is so pissed he will not vote for Bush. I recently created a new portfolio for my son's college education, and the Patriot Act required that I turn over access to the information in my son's account to their Federal authority. Last time I saw my orthopedist regarding my reconstructed knee, I had to sign a waiver, allowing the Feds access to my medical records. Otherwise, if my doctor attends to my knee, he is violating the Patriot Act. What are the choices left for Republicans? Obviously you guys are split between the old school and the new school. New school being the party of appeasement, spend&borrow, and federal intervention into our private lives. So y'all can: 1) hold your nose and vote for Bush 2) hold your nose and vote for Kerry 3) abstain 4) start working on an alternative I still can't believe you guys let Bush run unopposed for the party nomination.
First, of all, sweeping all the "Saudis" into one corner with your overgeneralizing brush is unfair. (similar to the sensibility of putting "latinos" or "negroes" into one pot). Clearly, there's a thriving Islamic fundamentalist strain in Saudi society, fueled by economic and political deprivation. That's not Jim Baker's fault...or even George Bush's. And that problem is not solved overnight. Meanwhile, ask yourself this question: which adminstration has been most active in pursing the solutions to this problem by trying to cultivate democracy and free market economis in the region?? Clinton?? Or Bush II? Second, Congress is equally at fault as the Bush Administration for runaway spending. It's a problem. But does anyone think Big Government Democrats are going to solve it? Third, when you look at debt, you have to look at it compared to the overall economy, not as numbers in isolation. Household cebt had indeed risen to near record levels as homeownership has surged. But this phenomenon is not unique to the United States. The level of household debt relative to disposable income in some countries-notably Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany—is actually higher than in the United States. Meanwhile, the ratio of the federal budget deficit to GDP over the next couple of years is unlikely to exceed the 5% level we saw in the early 1980s and in the early 1990s. A budget deficit of 3 to 4% of GDP is acceptable coming out of economic slowdown. Similarly, the ratio of U.S. federal debt to GDP, which reached a high of 50% in the early 1990s (and then fell to just above 30% at the end of the last expansion), is still relatively low. Now, long term things could be dicey, and we need to be vigilant about it. But predicting what's going to happen 10 years from now, as is the wont of Federal Budget practices, is a likely as predicting who is going to win the World Cup in 2020. To look at some real nubers, take a look at the Country Brief from the Economist. http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic Data Finally, all the Cassandras out there ought to look at this article from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2501977 Smile...these are good times, believe it or not.
These are reasons (ostensibly) why republicans shouldn't vote for Bush. They are not claimed to be reasons independent centrists shouldn't vote for Bush.
Re: Re: Three reasons Republicans should NOT vote for Bush The heart and soul of the party was represented by Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, rather than LBJ or HHH. Much like the heart and soul of the old school Republicans is represented by John McCain. I'm discussing the actual voters, not the pimps that run the various political factions. So Qdog, you gonna vote for the terrorist appeaser? Or do you like his spend&borrow policy? And when you do something wholesome like set up your kids' college funds, you want to register the info with the Feds? By Republican standards, the Bush administration sucks.
9/11 happened because of Saudi terrorists and Saudi money. No reprisals against the Saudis. The opposite happens. A lobbyist for the Saudis has an office in the White House. I'm going to put all the Saudis into one pot because their government and culture breeds the terrorists. Bush supports them. He is an appeaser. Be afraid. Very afraid. The Economist (Feb 28 edition, page 69) declares this a Phoney Recovery. "Drug addiscts get only a temporary high. America's economy, addicted to asset appreciation and debt, is no different." The Bushies created a credit bubble with artificially low interest rates. People are refinancing their houses to do a bit of spending. The debt will be due. And don't give me any crap about $6.5 trillion being small relative to the size of the economy. The $6.5 trillion in new debt in three years is a a boatload of debt. Bush sucks by Republican standards. Not by the Clinton standard (gad, he stopped being president over three years ago, give it up!)
I try to address the issues, raised quite appropriately by Roel, and you guys would rather get into the gratuitously personal. This is why folks like you will never have power or influence in this country.
Many of those that back Bush think like Karl Rove thinks. Its not about right or wrong, and often its not even about issues; its about winning, and (in their mind) who rules, regardless of the issues, and regardless of right and wrong. That's the intellectual hump that many of us have to get over; but NOT by matching demons with demonic activity, but rather by moving in the opposite direction, more forcefully, and establishing right and wrong in the clearest of terms, i.e., what is America going to BE in the coming years?
Well, at least you admit you engage in sweeping superficial genalizations. Our economy is still the largest, most productive, and wealthiest in the world. You need to go back and take economics 101. The Bushies didn't "create this credit bubble with articifially low interest rates." (You should have rates go up?? I am glad YOU"RE not in charge of economic policy). Many many complex factors are at work here -- Fed policy, global economic trends, etc. etc. Finally, you may desperately want to avoid useful comparisons, but I wouldn't if I were you. To you and me, perhaps, $50 grand is a lot of money, but for Martha Stewart it was tip money. But for that $50 grand, she's going to jail. It's all relative. This country has huge assets, a huge economy generating huge levels of wealth. It can afford a certain level of debt relative to what it builds and produces. In the fog of your anti-Bush sentiments, you fail to see this fundamental, basic economic axiom.
Currently the economy is NOT generating genuine wealth. It is re-distributing wealth. Rates have been set artificially low by the Fed. This is market manipulation, the opposite of free markets. Once upon a time, Republicans claimed to support free markets. No more. Currently we are producing debt at an alarming rate, and that debt is being put to use not by income-producing investments, but with consumption. A free market would peg interest rates significantly higher. Also, the Fed is indiscriminately producing more money. This increase in the money supply will produce either de-valuation of the dollar or inflation. Again, due to intervention of central banks, in this case monstly East Asians, as they wish to remain competitive in selling their manufactured goods. No more free markets. A free market would let the dollar sink deeper. Interest rates manipulations and central bank intervention are key to keeping the US economic indicators "up," but the bills must be paid. Genuine wealth is only created by spending less than you make, and re-investing the difference in real income-producing investments. The rest are just games. As for your throw-away comment that you are glad I'm not in control of the economy, you are probably right. Access to capital and equity markets would be much more free, the Fed would be far less powerful, and the US government would be reduced to the roles of defending the border, upholding the Constitution, and to some extent, providing a social safety net. I've commented on specifics in order threads and I won't bore you with them. If you are interested, you will find those comments elsewhere. My point is simple. As a Green Party member, I look at the performance of the Bush adminstration and attempt to rate it according to the standards of the traditional Republican party. He fails to meet those standards because he has been a failure in the war on terror, mismanaged the economy and created intrusive federal institutions.
Excellent post Roel. I think you hit on a very valuable point. For far too long our politics have been divided in terms of liberal vs. conservative. Conservative, government is bad, being epitomized by Goldwater. Liberal, government is good, being epitomized by the real JFK. JFK believed in the positive power of the federal government both home and abroad. His policies were carried forward by LBJ. LBJ was the watershed presidency when his party split along foreign policy lines. Then Nixon came along and stole many liberal ideas just as Clinton and Bush also triangulated. In fact, presidents who are ideologically pure are more rare than those who steal popular ideas from either side. With the end of the cold war and a very successful presidency that stole popular ideas from both sides we are left with two parties who know that running at the center is the way to win. They BOTH leave the ideologues on the sidelines. When the Green party says that there is not much difference between the two parties, I think they are substantially correct. If there were a major difference that the American people cared about then one party would be dominant. One could say that the proof is in the pudding, that there are no substantial differences because there is little difference in the popularity of the two. The terms Liberal and Conservative have become misnomers. Where I think you are incorrect is in the war on terrorism. I think there are substantial differences between the two parities. It seems clear to me that the Reps, across the board, are much more "forwards leaning" than the Dems. The Dems are all too ready to find fault or feel dirty in the exercise of American power. I think it's instructive to go back to the split in the Democratic party in '68. Vietnam looks to be the defining experience in this election. Now even the WOT is being run with emotional appeals and sound bites used to guide "the story". Neither side is being 100% up front with the voters. Bush simply doesn't communicate well enough or frequently enough. Kerry on the other hand, I think, has his head up his rear end. Bush isn’t perfect but he's doing the right things. That's where I think there is a difference between the two. I would have been happy with Lieberman just as much as with Bush. Directly to your point, the role of the third party people is to keep the first two parties clear headed and focused on the issues. The first two parties would LOVE to turn the election into campaign commercials and counter charges weaving a story that people "buy into". I voted for Perot twice because I felt that his presence kept the two parties focused on the issues. This was especially true in '92 when GWHB couldn't go after Clinton on a personal level because Perot kept talking about taxes, trade and the deficit. I think the increased deficit is the clearest example of each party using the government to it's own ends. So my advice is not to vote Green. I would say that the vote is the result rather than the cause. Rather the third party people have an obligation to be level headed and clarify the issues. If they don't then the two major parties end up running the campaign for their own ends.
Re: Re: Re: Three reasons Republicans should NOT vote for Bush McCarthy and McGovern. Really? I was thinking more of JFK. You know, of Bay of Pigs and Vietnam fame. As for who I´m voting for, don´t know yet. Get with me around August. I´ll probably have made up my mind by then.
If you didn't have you head so far up your ass you would have seen what I was referring to. Next time check your facts before you talk.
I'm not happy with dubya's treatment of the Saudis - but tell me, what does Kerry propose in his crackdown on the scumsucking terrorists? Repeal of the patriot act? Amnesty for illegal aliens? And what does he propose to do with the Saudis? How about the Iranians? Just like McGovern and McCarthy - the peace of surrender?
I dunno. But taking office without a multi-generational family-business relationship with Saudi Royals, nor a recent history of lying to justify a "war on terr" and then wasting hundreds of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars by attacking the wrong country would be a good place to start.
Bush gets an "F" on the war on terror. Since he is a self-declared "war president," that all actions should be judged against the background of war, and that he has appeased the true perpetrators of 9/11, he should be fired. Period.
Boy, thank God Nixon won - otherwise, we might have lost the Vietnam War. Thanks to you, I've broken my eyes through excessive rolling. Qdog, this is something I've wondered about, not to single you out personally...but why would you need to wait until August to make up your mind? You know what Bush is about by now. It's pretty easy to find out what John Kerry is about, what with him being in public life for over thirty years now. I realize the conventions are going to produce more specific platforms, but I just don't get what exactly people are waiting for. The 2000 election was different, since both men ran very centrist campaigns, and both men had fairly uncontroversial records. It couldn't be more different now. I mean, the only thing I can see changing people's minds is OBL being caught, and Bush taking the credit. But neither man is going to change much between now and November, from what I can see. Okay, I guess in theory, the economy could turn around. But since Bush supporters have trouble believing there's anything wrong with the economy now, I don't see them enacting anything to fix the problem, BigSoccer banner ads notwithstanding.
Yep, Nixon lost the only war in US history. Too early to declare Bush the loser on the war on terror, but he certainly isn't doing anything to win. The intent of this thread is not to get into Republicans' faces and say Kerry is better, blah, blah. Rather, Bush does not represent old school Republican values. He is quite comfortable with the religious wing of the party, and that, along with the neo-con (A.K.A. permanent war) wing make up the new heart and soul of the Republican party. If religious intolerance, social restrictions, and random acts of war that have nothing to do with cleaning up the world of terrorist threats, then by all means, Bush is your guy. Since deficits don't matter, I guess it also applies to moral and intellectual deficits. Most Republicans I know are extremely uncomfortable with Bush, so the challenge is to get them comfortable with the alternatives to Bush. Since the Republicans lacked the genital fortitude to provide opposition in the primaries, other options must be considered. - Abstain? - Kerry? - Third party?
REally?? I hate to spoil anyone's party here, but my views are probably more mainstream and typical of business and economic leaders in country than those of the leftist crackpots who populate this board.
well there you have it. your views coincide closely with a bunch of people who don't give a shit about anybody but themselves and their bottom dollar. go figure.