Re: Kerry –

Weeding out all the vague patriotic rhetoric for what it is, here’s what I know: I know that right now I’m paying almost half a GRAND for my health insurance per month, and it just keeps going up. I know that if Bush is re-elected, he has four more years to “crack down” on abortion rights (I’d like to be able to fuck my girlfriend without accidentally getting stuck with a kid), and maintain tax cuts for the wealthy when I, and those with less than me, could use them more.

As far as who’s better “equipped” to fight the war on terror and “keep America safe,” I don’t know. Neither guy strikes me as exceptionally trustworthy. Bush is bolder, Kerry has more foresight. I lean towards foresight being the more valuable quality. To me, bravado doesn’t carry all that far, and that’s the only credential I see Bush as having as a war-time leader.

So I see no reason not to let Kerry take a crack at it for a few years. I’m sure either man will do their very best to prevent, and safeguard against, further terrorist attacks.

And I find the idea that Kerry cares less about the troops absurd, since, yes – he has known war firsthand. I really don’t care about all the details. He went and fought. Bush spent a couple weeks (over the course of years) puttering around with jets and wasn’t there when he wasn’t required to be. I don’t think that’s a really bad thing, but, come on.

I’d like a little more clarification on some of his votes in the Senate, but it seems to me a ton of context is missing insofar as the Bush administration’s attacks on it go. I’m not sure it matters much anyway. Bush flip-flops on everything. Sometimes people, you know, learn or grow, and/or alter past positions based on a present and more applicable context. Nothing wrong with that.

(Shrug.) So, those are the fundamental reasons I’m voting Kerry. I don’t care whose wife delivers a better speech or who has the bigger dick.

K

According to some analysis he had more to lose in his effectiveness in Calif. than gain. It is not like he is going to be running for President or something.

I sometimes think that the only thing scarier to liberal democrats than the Christian right agenda is a party that would be and reflect a free market, property rights and self reliance as a true and diverse majority of Americans.

----

PS madge

I would hope that you would reconsider - and since you are taking the "what is in it for me" tack I will answer as cynically as I can muster.

Right now I’m paying almost half a GRAND for my health insurance per month, and it just keeps going up..

Niether party is any less beholden to insurance companies and that goes for both candidates - so you will likely continue to pay through the nose either way

I know that if Bush is re-elected, he has four more years to “crack down” on abortion rights (I’d like to be able to fuck my girlfriend without accidentally getting stuck with a kid

If abortion were made illegal tomorrow wouldn't your risks be the same given that abortion and contraception are not the same thing.

and maintain tax cuts for the wealthy when I, and those with less than me, could use them more.

I could use them more as well but I am not likely to get it with Kerry and the risk of them going up is greater with him.

As far as who’s better “equipped” to fight the war on terror and “keep America safe,” I don’t know. Bush is bolder, Kerry has more foresight.

I don't see any foresight on the Kerry side - I am curious as to why you do? It also seems more than bold it is the difference between offence and defense.

I also think more is at stake than "I’m sure either man will do their very best to prevent, and safeguard against, further terrorist attacks." I am pretty sure it's true that the course of US history is a stake and that should matter to you for very practical reasons. It is not like we are going to get a "do over" after four years.

I have seen my tax burden go up mainly due to the fact that taxes at the state level have been raised due to the diminishing payrolls in my state.

I have seen my pay cut due to overtime regulations that state that when I am on call during the weekend that it only qualifies as straight time because it is advisory work and I don't actually punch a clock, but log time. Thats real fair when somebody in my office wakes me up at 3 a.m. because one of my drivers is out of money for fuel.

As far as defense goes I have seen good will with other countries, our military resouces AND tax payer dollars squandered on a grudge match that we were mislead into. Meanwhile terrorism is not only flourishing, we're providing the training grounds. I believed that we were right in going into Iraq, I was among those convinced that Saddam was capable of attacking us with WMD and that he could have possibly been working in league with Osama Bin Laden. I WAS WRONG!

I have seen the party of fiscal and personal responsibility become a bunch of Tax cut and spend, finger pointing, responsibility dodging special interest WHORES for the wealthy.

Lets look at my voting record:

1996: Voted for Bob Dole, did not trust Clinton.

2000: Grudgingly voted for George W. Bush even though I KNEW that McCain would have been a better candidate.

1994-2003- Have voted for Republicans for Senate and City council (But have voted for democrats for Clerk of courts, treasurer and Mayor of my city.

So it's not like I am some leftist "hippy".


The simple question is: Is the country better off now then we were 4 years ago?

The simple answer is: No, we are not.

And don't give me crap about Bush keeping us safe from terrorism. Thats like saying he is keeping us safe from an Alien invasion, you ask somebody what the hell are you talking about and they would reply "Well, do you see any alien overlords around?"

And despite all of this, I STILL cannot vote for Kerry.

Personally, I thought it was the influence of Arnold's great friend and mentor, former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, that drove him to the Republican Party.

However, Arnold wasn't saying "this is what we hope the Republican party will stand for or these are our ideas", he was saying "if you believe in this you are a Republican". Yet very few of these things truly stands for the Republican party (notice I say Republican party, not conservatives, which in my eyes is something completely different).



A worthwhile goal, but not something that I see currently in the Republican party.
The Bush administration has hardly been "accountable to the people", which secret energy meetings or the PATRIOT ACT with secret courts. Maybe you can point out something that I missed, but personally I haven't seen anything that the Republicans have done to make the government more accountable to the people for their actions.



Once again, a worthwhile goal, but the Republican party is often pushed one way or another by interest groups and lobby groups such as the religious-right or the NRA. Once again, it's one thing to talk to talk, but something completely different to walk the walk.



If you believe that your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Libertarian. While the Bush administration has given out tax cuts, they have not managed to cut spending, which means it's just future generations that are paying for current government expenses. However, I guess "If you believe that your kids should pay the bill for the current government years down the road, then you are a Republican" doesn't have the same ring to it.



This is hardly a just a Republican value, as who doesn't believe the education system should be held accountable for the progress of the children?



While I do admit that a current version of the Republican party has less trust in the United Nations than the Democratic party, I don't think either major party completely trusts the UN and is willing to let them have the last say in any international matter.



Once again, hardly just a Republican value. Unless I missed somewhere that the Democrats want to support terrorism? Not to mention there's been a lot of criticism over the Republicans ignoring terrorism while they went after Iraq and Saddam. Now Saddam has been captured while Osama bin Laden still runs free. Interesting enough while Saddam has been mentioned quite a bit at the RNC, I don't think that Osama bin Laden's name has not been mentioned and I doubt it will be.



Seems like another way to tell that you are a Libertarian. Of course the Bush administration is very much for free trade... except for softwood trade... and steel... and wheat... and...ah, what the hell, Bush is quite the projectionist! He may preach free trade but then completely ignores free trade agreements when it doesn't suit him. Canada has been trying with no luck to try to get him to honor the North American Free Trade Agreement with no luck. The WTO has ruled against the US in many of these cases (see this link and this link for two examples), but the US continues to ignore these rulings and continues to tack on tariffs. However, I'm not sure if Bush really believes in protectionism or if he's just trying to buy votes from areas that have a lot of these type of industries, or if these industries donate heavily to the Republican party (aka legal bribery).

And that is why I said if you believe the Republican party actually stands for all those things, then you are gullible. Arnold was just throwing out rhetoric that did not resemble anything that the Republican party actually represents in reality.