TheAgitator.com
Kerry’s Not So Very
Sunday, July 18th, 2004I’ve been meaning to link to this Jesse Walker piece outlining the many reasons George W. Bush needs to lose in November. I think his conclusion best sums loathing for this administration best:
He’s making me root for John Kerry. I haven’t voted for a major party’s presidential candidate since 1988, and I have no plans to revert to the habit this year. The Democrats have nominated a senator whoâjust sticking to the points listed aboveâvoted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and the TSA; who endorses the assault on “indecency”; who thinks the government should be spending even more than it is now. I didn’t have room in my top ten for the terrible No Child Left Behind Act, which further centralized control of the country’s public schoolsâbut for the record, Kerry voted for that one too. It’s far from clear that he’d be any less protectionist than Bush is, and he’s also got problems that Bush doesn’t have, like his support for stricter gun controls. True, Kerry doesn’t owe anything to the religious right, and you can’t blame him for the torture at Abu Ghraib. Other than that, he’s not much of an improvement.Yet I find myself hoping the guy wins. Not because I’m sure he’ll be better than the current executive, but because the incumbent so richly deserves to be punished at the polls. Making me root for a sanctimonious statist blowhard like Kerry isn’t the worst thing Bush has done to the country. But it’s the offense that I take most personally.
Amen. I shudder when Kerry speaks. And I’m not all happy at the prospect of tolerating him for four years.
But it needs to happen.
In addition to the divided government argument, and it’s sister “Republicans-are-most-principled-when-they-aren’t-running-government argument, Bush needs to lose because politicians need to be held accountable for the way they govern. President Bush needs to be told that if he isn’t going to hold anyone accountable for September 11, for the WMD intelligence failure, and for the myriad of other mistruths and failings his people have moved blame on down the line for, then we’re going to hold him accountable. The Bush Doctrine needs to be invalidated by the electorate. Republicans seem to think that senseless pork projects, selling out on trade, campaign finance reform, and bloated government are acceptable so long as they pass half-assed tax cuts and hold the line at gay couples getting hospital visitation rights. Republicans need to be told that that isn’t okay, and they need to be slapped around a little at the polls for ever thinking it was.
I haven’t yet decided who I’m voting for. Check that. I haven’t decided if I’m going to vote. It’s either no vote at all, or a Kerry vote. Regardless, I’m pulling for the Blue states come November. Because when government fails us, we need to call for new government.
Of course if I get my wish, I have no doubt that I’ll be whining about the shortcomings of a Kerry administration on these pages from pretty much the moment it takes the reins.
Bush has his problems no doubt, but Kerry is a complete fool and if you think things are bad now Radley please take a step back and think what this country will be like with Kerry. Sure devided government is better but having putting Kerry in charge is tantamount to you supporting the UN making our foreign policy decisions.
I can accept your decision that you do not like Bush, but you have yet to fully think out how bad the things would be under Kerry.
As for your WMD contentions and accountability fro 9/11, what the hell are you talking about. Get your facts straight. Everyone thought Iraw had WMDs and I am still not comfortable about where they are. Second, both reports just out stated clearly that Iraq was in contact with Niger about obtaining Uranium, are you fine with that? Or should we have waited to attack Iraq only after we had proof that he already built a bomb? As for 9/11 that is America’s fault. We have been constantly under attack from these radical muslims for 25 years and have done nothing to stop it, until we wake up as a country it will keep happening.
Voting as punishment, eh?
Now… if it was just punishment against Bush that would be one thing - if it was just suffering thru 4 years of Kerry that might be acceptable also. However, think of the children.
Eh. Wait.
I mean do you honestly believe that the Judges that Kerry appoints would be more or less friendly to our reading of the consitutiton? Given that there are a few Supremes that could retire at any time…
maybe that isn’t the number one issue to many americans but it will be the most lasting effect of this election…
blah blah blah
I’m voting libertarian, but I don’t understand the folks who follow that general line of political thought that are voting for Kerry. Yes, Bush was atrocious and has no business being president. But he doesn’t support federal ownership of teenagers, he supports at least slightly lower taxes, and he’s not a trial lawyer lackey, as well as the aforementioned fact that he’s more likely to support judges that respect the constitution. Aren’t those things enought to preclude a vote for Kerry?
[quote]
Sure devided government is better but having putting Kerry in charge is tantamount to you supporting the UN making our foreign policy decisions.
[/quote]
You know why he’ll do this, right? Because he’s a flip-flopper. A bleeding heart liberal, America hating flip-flopper from Taxachussets.
Not only will he promote abortions, making them the leading method of birth control. Not only will he allow France to use the UN as a surrogate to secretly control US policy. Not only will he allow hippie judges to rule like dictators from the bench…
…but he’ll never even look you in the eye and give you an honest answer, because he’s shifty and a Washington insider, a flip-flopping liberal from Taxachussets.
Then again, a Kerry win could screw libertarian principles even more. Just brainstorming here -
Kerry wins. Iraq continues to be, well, Iraq. Kerry is held responsible for the mess he inherited, and is constantly criticized for not being aggressive enough. He complies, and the left says nothing because, hey, he’s Not Bush.
Congress doesn’t even give lip service to limited government anymore, instead focusing on a more aggressive foreign policy. The big vs little government debate is dead, replaced by nasty fights over who we should bomb next.
Another terrorist attack. Kerry’s voice and temperment infuriates revenge-hungry hawks. They feel our leader is a pussy, That image is fueled by Mobey type celebrities doing talk show circuits to defend him. Not exactly the “unity” displayed after 9-11.
Rupublicans enjoy a double digit popularity rating going into the 2008 elections. The candidate runs on a popular “Christian Nation” platform. Mandatory prayer in schools, tax breaks for church attendence, and the prohibition of non-Jesus centric religions (Jews are exempt, since they’re needed to bring about Armageddon). Non Christians are to be sent to rehabilitation camps.
The Republicans win 2008.
Whew, that was fun to write.
If Bush wins (2004, of course), he’ll have four more years to piss off traditional conservatives. Bush’s popularity drops, yet people are also sick of the left’s hysterical criticism. Libertarian ideas start making sense. 2008 elections see two candidates trying to out-libertarian each other.
Then, out of nowhere, Kenny Kramer (the inspiration for the Kramer character on Seinfeld) wins the election for the Libertarian party in a landslide. He’s hesitant to take the position, however. Not because of his lack of experience, but because he’d have to give up his Upper West Side rent controlled apartment. Oh, the irony.
I think I just convinced myself to vote for Bush…
Radley says,
“Bush needs to lose because politicians need to be held accountable for the way they govern”.
1)That “half-assed tax-cut” you mentioned completely turned around a recessional economy. I wonder how well YOU would have done with a 537 vote mandate?
2)No terrorist attacks on US mainland since 9/11
3)leadership of scores of nations in the battle againt international terrorism
4)Saddam-major source of funding for terrorists-neutralized.
5)Iraq-turned into an ally in the war on terror
6)Afganistan-major haven for terrorists-neutralized
7)Libya, potential source of terrorism-neutralized
8)Syria-strangely silent as of late-gee- I wonder why?
9)China-chronic US nemisis, enlisted as an aid in the WOT by assisting us with NKorea.
10)Iran, probably, very necessarily “next”. Of course we could expect the necessary forthright action with Kerry.(yeah right!)
By all means, let’s hold Bush accountable for the way he has governed, as long as this means comparing it to real-world alternatives.(I know, my same tiresome theme)
Radley also says,
“Republicans seem to think that senseless pork projects, selling out on trade, campaign finance reform, and bloated government are acceptable”
I’m curious just what you think you would have gotten with Gore?
Radley says,
“Of course if I get my wish, I have no doubt that I’ll be whining about the shortcomings of a Kerry administration”
But would you wear a tee-shirt proclaiming to all that YOU helped get him elected–say 6 months after his inaugeration? That’s what I’d like to see.
“2)No terrorist attacks on US mainland since 9/11″
So sending ricin to the United States Senate doesn’t count as a terrorist attack, then?
Brady–wel-l-l-l–THEY had it comin’!
Seriously, I’m unaware that it was confirmed to be Ricin. If it was AND it was determined that the source was international and not some domestic nut-case (a la Tim Mcveigh)then I suppose you are correct.
Feel free to assign yourself the appropriate number of points detracted against my previous post.
Umm, You ever thought about voting for the good ole Libertarins, you know since you are thinking about not voting either way?
Just wait until Kerry’s Supreme Court Justices start interpeting/adding to/disregarding the Constitution. Then it would be time to break out the “don’t blame me, I voted Bush” t-shirts again. Or, I could print some up that say “don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian”.
Honestly, Radley, I think all this time in Washington has gotten to your head.
How could you just NOT VOTE? You could at least declare your viewpoint by voting for Badnarik. That’s what I’ll be doing. I don’t care that he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell, I just don’t want to have to explain to people why I voted for Kerry.
When one thieving collectivist burns us we need to call for another thieving collectivist!
Wow.
One of the advantages of putting the Republicans in charge of everything for the past couple of years is that it has exposed the conservative movement for what it is: big-government bloodthirsty savages run by an ad hoc coalition of military profiteers and religious whackos. No Republican can honestly stand before a group of market conservatives and libertarians and proclaim that the explosion in government spending in the past 3 years is the fault of socialist Democrats. The Republicans run the White House, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. This is their government.
- Josh
Of course if I get my wish, I have no doubt that I’ll be whining about the shortcomings of a Kerry administration on these pages from pretty much the moment it takes the reins.
Shouldn’t that tell you something, Radley? Shouldn’t knowing that put an end to your agonizing about whether or not you’ll be voting for Kerry?
What makes you think it will be a split government if Kerry wins? The Dems could easily take the Senate and while it isn’t likely they will get the House they could get close enough to get their will.
Isn’t this ultimately just whining? The question should be whether you think that Kerry would do better, not whether you objectively like what Bush has done. If you think the Bush administration is a 2 on a 10-point scale, then why vote for a Kerry administration that you think would be a 1? Of course, those numbers are merely illustrative of my point, not what I think you might think about the respective virtues of a Bush or Kerry administration.
I tried that in Dallas. I voted for gridlock. That candidate (Laura Miller) won. We got a smoking ban and a “signature bridge” boondogle. Never again.
Thank you everyone for the wonderful comments. It’s nice to know I am not the only one that thinks Radley has taken his Bush bashing a little to far.
I think we all agree that Bush has his faults, but that is no reflection on how horrible Kerry would be for this country and our Constitution.
What Radley has not answered is if his anti-war stance has changed any now that both the Senate and Brits have stated that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger. Radley, at what point do we stop a country from trying to produce nuclear weapons? My answer is the first day they try, what is yours?
Radley,
WHY DO YOU HURT THE ONES YOU LOVE??!!
WHY DO YOU HATE THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY SOOOOO MUCH??!!
vote badnarik, you unprincipled nooch.
Radley,
if you’re from Virginia, you know your vote for Kerry doesn’t matter. Bush will win Virginia without so much as a visit. Might as well vote for Badnarik, or at least vote for yourself or a friend, just to get people off your back for not voting, or for voting for Kerry. I agree with incumbent accountability, but you’re not going to change the election, so just use your vote for what it is and increase the percentage of other parties instead.
Rocketman,
Did you notice that 9 out of your 10 policy issues for Bush were the same policy issue? The only point that wasn’t foreign policy (the economy turn-around)cannot be assigned to the tax-cut (or the White House) alone. What do you think Greenspan has been doing for the past four years? From what I can see, he’s doing stuff more beneficial to the economy than keeping a few billion away from the money-grubbing hands of the government. Keep in mind that we have no idea what the economy of a debt-ridden country will look like in the future. The best example of a country with large national debt is probably inter-war Germany. Just to give you something to think about. So I guess there is a possibility of new parties coming about in the future. (although, I would hope they would be nice.)
And I think it is WAYYYY out of line to accuse someone of wishing they had voted for Gore.
I’m going to vote for my dog as a write in candidate.
Scotty, what’s your dog’s name?
I am just struck speachless by all these people saying they will hate having Kerry as president, how he is no different, or even worse than Bush, but they will vote for them anyway.
WHAT? That makes no sense. Lets teach Bush a lesson, but not make America better or safer. It that smart?
Went to a family picnic wearing, as a joke, a tee shirt that said: “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican.” Got a lot of interesting comments, but the best was from the host of the party, a man in his seventies, a very, very successful businessman, who said: “Four years ago I would have been mad as hell about that shirt. Now? I don’t give a damn.” He went on to say that neither candidate is worthy of being president
(they are both losers). I couldn’t agree more.
Also, just a note: it’s NEVER reality that determines an election; it’s PERCEPTION. So, what does it say when the most liberal senator is running neck and neck with Bush???? Bush is in trouble whether anyone likes it or not!
Why is it that, if we choose to vote, we have to vote FOR someone. Wouldn’t it be great if we could also vote AGAINST a candidate. It’d be a race to see who could get closest to 0 votes!
bush is still going to win.
james says,
“Did you notice that 9 out of your 10 policy issues for Bush were the same policy issue?”
Yeah, that’s often the case when a President start’s with little or no mandate and a divided govt. It’s more difficult for the other side to block foreign policy initiatives.
I didn’t exactly accuse anyone of wishing they had voted for Gore. I merely suggested that we would have gotten more of what Radley (and me too for that matter)hasn’t liked with Gore than we have gotten with Bush.
I also stand by my challenge, if you are willing to vote for Kerry, you should be willing to wear a T-shirt that tells everyone you did so-say 6 months to a year afterwards. It won’t take nearly that long for the folly of such a vote to become apparent.
I’ve still pointed out ten significant accomplishments of this administration. Remember this list was cited as a response to Radley’s comment,’politicians need to be held accountable for the way they govern’ note also the list remains virtually unrefuted.
You can credit Greenspan all you want, I won’t bother to debate that. I’ll just note that we BOTH know who everyone would be blaming if the economy DIDN’T rebound the way it has.
Af far as the other nine being about the same issue, some of us question if there really ARE any other issues just now.
It appears that Radley’s views are evolving but as it stands, he is ready to chuck the most effective prosecution of the WOT and replace it with a really neat way to get a handle on deficit spending.
I for one, do not care to pass the WOT down to the next generation if I can help it. Planning in advance to “whine” about Kerry ain’t gonna cut it either.
I would have to agree that the worst thing that Bush has done is make me consider voting for Kerry.
But I’ll probably vote for Kerry. There is no way I can support Bush mostly because of his backing of the FMA.
(Badnarik is a nut job and there is no way I’ll vote for him - he’ll probably be indicted before the election anyway)
Lee,
Backing the FMA puts Bush to the right of Kerry on Gay marriage.
Karl Rove estimated that as many as 4 million evangelicals sat out the last election over that silly DUI story the Dems released three days before the election. NOT THIS TIME!!
Being ‘more against gay marriage than Kerry’, assures that those evangelicals will pasture the goats, hang up the ropes, cancel their visit to the monster truck rally, turn off the Jerry Springer marathon, get off their fat religious posteriors and vote for Dubya to save the world from gay marriage.
While it saddens me that Dubya may lose some votes over this issue, let me assure you it will garner him 10,000 or more for everyone it cost’s him. This is true because studies have shown that those against “gay marriage” are passionately agaisnt it. While those “not opposed”, generally are not. (usually something like, “it’s no big deal to me one way or the other”.
Know that five seconds after the polls close, the White House will suddenly discover it has other fish to fry and nobody thinks such an amendment has a snowballs chance.
If your’e unhappy with Bush’s attitude about gay marriage, I promise you you wont’ like Bin Laden’s.
With all that is at stake, please reconsider.
Lee - what’s your problem with badnarik? ….
It’s not like he’s going to get elected anyway, a vote for him is just a vote for the libertarian party and towards putting them more into the media light.
Given all his faults, I think that Bush offers the best hope for reforming Social Security. When it comes, the ‘War against Social Security’ will be just as fierce, and loathed by the left and the media as the war against Iraq (if not more so). I see no one on the political landscape other than George Bush who has the balls to attempt it.
It comes down to this:
One side says the right things … and does some of them … but also does stupid things in the name of political expediency.
The other side also acts out of expediency … but derives its power from the legions of true believers in stupidity that make up its base, and therefore actively plays to that stupidity.
Which side would be more correctable?
This is what you get with this political Cold War — and until one side or other is effectively shut out, you will get at least some of the same … and no chance for libertarian or other alternative viewpoints to be turned into policy.
IMO, my voting for Bush is making the best of a bad situation … and in that regard, it is a clear choice.
(BTW, as long as the Democrats can fillibuster in the Senate, the GOP does NOT have total control of Congress).
Quite a quandry. There’s no way in hell I can vote for Kerry. Bush isn’t exactly inspiring. As happy I am that he was our president these past 4 years with regard to the terrorism issues, I am equally unhappy, if not more so, at the astronomical rate of government growth and many other domestic issues. Things like gay marriage have to stop being discussed on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s fucking ridiculous.
I hate to be in a position of choosing the ‘lesser of two evils’ but that’s pretty much the way it is every election. It’s just that, to me, anyway, the difference between the two isn’t very much.
Since I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the Democan or the Republicrat, it is at this time my intention to register as an independent and vote for Badnarik. I have looked over his stance on all of the major issues and can find no reason not to vote for him.
If my vote is going to be cast, it’s going to be cast for someone whose values are most in line with mine, the hell with whether he wins or not. At least I won’t be wringing my hands for the next four years saying, “And I voted for this ass.”
for the libertarians out there who are going to vote for kerry:
do you really believe that there are 2 americas?
do you really believe trickle down economics does not work?
do you really believe the UN should dictate our foregn policy?
do you really believe lower taxes is a bad thing?
do you really believe our economy sucks right now?
do you really belive kerry and edwards are the “hope” for america?
if so, then i can repsect you voting for them.
Bush made some of the biggest mistakes in this term, IMO, in that he chose to implement liberal (Democrat) programs..see Medicare Bill… in the false hopes that it would soften critisim from the left, and bring voters to his side. This was extremely short sighted, and has not had the desired effect. He has removed most of the left’s platform, but at the same time become the biggest spender in modern times. Hopefully they will be able to roll back some of these programs in a second term when pressure to be relected is not there. At least that is what I am hoping for.
Radley:
Bush needs to be told that if he isn’t going to hold anyone accountable for September 11, for the WMD intelligence failure, and for the myriad of other mistruths and failings his people have moved blame on down the line for, then we’re going to hold him accountable.
You want accountability — start with the Democrats in Congress who hamstrung the CIA and FBI in the name of civil liberties. The operators were playing by the rules given to them … and Bush acted on the info he had (or, is he a liar?)
The Bush Doctrine needs to be invalidated by the electorate.
The Bush Doctrine reversed the biggest failure of fifty years of diplomacy (that was dominated by Leftist thinking) — the fallacy that war was never the answer until bodies are dead in our streets.
Taking out Saddam in the War on Terror was equivalent to sending the Eighth Air Force to bomb ball-bearing plants in WWII … and terrorists no longer have total control over the time and place of the conflict, which will at least slow down their ability to plan the sequel to 911.
“Republicans seem to think that senseless pork projects, selling out on trade, campaign finance reform, and bloated government are acceptable …”
And the only other real choice we have is ANY better on these issues? Add to this the Democratic views on judicial activism and tort reform, too, before casting your vote.
“… so long as they pass half-assed tax cuts and hold the line at gay couples getting hospital visitation rights.”
As opposed to seeing those half-assed cuts rolled back (especially for those who are most productive, for both themselves and society)?
And, what the gay activists want is not just hospitial visitation and other domestic-partner rights that can be guaranteed by legal means outside of marriage — they seek the stamp of implicit government approval for their lifestyle, not by legislation, but by judicial activism … then will use that “approval” to shut down the debate about the morality of homosexuality.
“Republicans need to be told that that isn’t okay, and they need to be slapped around a little at the polls for ever thinking it was.”
Your “cure”, even for the legitimate ills of the GOP, is worse than the disease.
Clarifcation:
“The Bush Doctrine needs to be invalidated by the electorate.”
That is a quote from Radley, not my view.
Dangit — that kind of formatting error is what I get for spending time on other blogs.
thanks for clarification rich. i was wondering.
Has it occurred to you {Radley} that Bush has been good for the cause of liberty? Bear with me here. He has pushed Rebulicans to the left and right. All conservatives are no longer automatically Republicans. The political scene is a different ball game now. This is actually the best time for a Libertarian to jump in there and grab the votes of the conservatives whom have abandonded the Republican party. I am a registered Republican who would be willing to vote Libertarian because of several decisions under the GOP. Where’s our guy/gal?
On voting for grid-lock, pooh on that. Kerry is an idiot.
And another thing… ARNOLD FOR PRESIDENT 2008! I love that he called the California Dems “girlie men” and even more that he refuses to apologize. Woohoo! That rocks!
Ms. Dani, his site is here:
Ms. Dani and I are just two examples of disenfranchised Republicans . . . how many more of us are out there? Enough to win it for Kerry if we aren’t voting for Bush?
Do we care?
Michael Badnarik for President
Sorry, bad code last post.
Ventura in 08!
How about Ventura/Schwarzeneggar in 08? WWF in the Whitehouse. Awesome. They could have Chavo Guerrero as their Secretary of State and Stone Cold Steve Austin as Secretary of Defense. I’d vote for them before I would Kerry by a long shot.
It’s always going to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, especially if you have a libertarian slant. If you really add everything up, it’s hard not to favor Bush at least a little.
The Rx Drug benifit was really a master stroke of politics. Even if it doesn’t endear a lot of old folks to Bush, it robs the Democrats of a favorite issue. Kerry would like to say he’s ready to do something about it when Bush has done nothing on several issues. But Bush did some big spending so now Kerry is reduced to saying he’d do more, Bush isn’t doing enough on almost every point. It’s either that or search for brand new ways to buy votes.
Now, you could get all morally uppity and want to punish Bush for all the spending. I’m tempted, but the Democrats have to promise to spend more, rather than less. They have acted exactly as the Republicans predicted and I think the election is pretty much a forgone conclusion.
It’s odd, but I almost believe Bush really wanted to be a uniter, but you can’t do that by embracing the Democrats hot button issues. I don’t think they really care about big-spending issues besides what it represents in votes and government jobs. If they can’t take full credit for the big social programs, they’d just as soon not have them at all. Ted Kennedy made a fool out of Bush on that education bill, but thats about all Bush got done pre-9/11.
I’d love to explore the alternate history of a world where 9/11 never happened, but too many people are already bringing that kind of denial to the polls, so I don’t indululge it myself. I think all the polls to date have really failed to capture the impact of the attacks on the voters.
I think Bush will be okay as soon as he digs himself out of the pile of lies that were so well publicized and made by his enemies. Like Joe Wilson, seems like he has been caught in a few whoppers, not to mention Richard Clarke who has been exposed for telling a few select untruths and will be exposed on a few more in the near future. Then we have the WMD thing, my question is this. Just how many artillary shells armed with Mustard gas or Sarin gas do we have to find before we establish the presence of WMDs in Iraq, I think at last count we were up to 32. But then are these truly WMDs I guess it depends on whose neighborhood one of them is launched into. Yes, Bush has problems and one of the main one is the unrelenting assault on his character by the left which has been very effective but done a little to early
I haven’t enjoyed an Agitator comments thread as much as this one in a long time. Very interesting, very intelligent.
Radley, I can handle reading opinions of yours that conflict with my own, because I know that you have convictions. If you really don’t vote in November, regardless of which of the three candidates receives your vote, I don’t think I could take this blog very seriously anymore.
Rocketman,
LOL linking OBL with Kerry. I knew I skipped your posts for a reason. No, I’ll not reconsider.
Okay,
Here is a story about the Libertarian Convention and some of Badnarik’s story.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/sidebars.html
I see your point about not voting for Bush… BUT, what’s the point of trying to teach someone a lesson when you’re sure they won’t learn anything? That’s like trying to teach a goldfish to speak.
Instead, why not try to demonstrate the political usefulness of sticking to Reagan’s model of conservatism? In other words, support the issues you want to support, but don’t back Kerry. He’s worse. Incite tensions within the GOP between the small government conservatives and the profligate spenders. Try to push a major party in the right direction rather than simply piss and moan.
Just a suggestion. I’m voting for Bush for the same reasons you’re voting for Kerry. Again, Kerry is worse.
Rocketman: “While it saddens me that Dubya may lose some votes over this issue, let me assure you it will garner him 10,000 or more for everyone it cost’s him. This is true because studies have shown that those against “gay marriage” are passionately agaisnt it. While those “not opposed”, generally are not. (usually something like, “it’s no big deal to me one way or the other”.”
- You can’t really think this to be the case? I’d love to see those apparent “studies” that says that for every gay american, there are 10,000 who are passionately against gay marriage.
I know you are being just a little sarcastic, but I’d guess that most people passionately against gay marriage considered themselves republicans before the FMA debate surfaced and most passionately for it were democrats. If I were to guess how many people this topic will “sway from the fence”, which is really the only votes that Kerry and Bush should care about, I’d say it’s probably about even.
Of course I don’t have any “studies”, but I’m sure your 10,000 to 1 studies will be ultimately a little hard to find also.
Manuel, where do you get your information about how many Mustard/Sarin shells we’ve found? I’m curious, because I truly believe they are out there but I don’t hear SHIT on national news about it….
Lee -
I know the main source for that, he’s a raving lunatic, and he was a huge supporter of Russo that was extremly freaking pissed off when Russo lost…
He tried to physicall attack Badnarik on Monday of the convention. he’s been harrasing The Badnarik blog ever since… Russo is 100 percent behind Badnarik, we just have a few fringe people spreading lies now.
Rocketman replies to Lee.
Perhaps you skip my posts because that is easier than rebutting them.
Don’t sell yourself short. Feel free to enlighten me any time.
Start with explaining how my post connects Bin Laden to Kerry.
“Drive-by’s” are a dime a dozen and very flattering in their own way.
Rocketman replies to Travis
You’re correct-the 10,000 to one number is apocryphal. If you felt my language was intentionally deceitful,I apologize.
There HAVE been polls taken about how passionately people feel on the respective sides of this issue. I’ll source some for you if you bother to request them.
Perhaps I’m a victim of my own personal experience. I’ve known many evangelicals. Most of them were barely concerned about current events.(”Jesus has a special place for me in heaven so why should I care about”…). For some reason it has always been my experience that they do not feel that way about homosexuality. It is wrong evil and bad and must be stopped at all costs.
People on the other side on this issue(in my experience)are usually not so much “pro homosexuality” as they are anti harassment of homosexuals. They are usually interested in and have stronger opinions about other issues. Also as you have pointed out, they are committed Dems who wouldn’t vote for Dubya anyway.
Few non-voters would register to vote just to protect gays from harassment. Many on the other side WILL register to vote just to “stop gay marriage” and this is why I disagree with your assessment that the fence sitters are about even. I don’t think you’re taking into account the people who previously had no intent to vote at all but that WILL register because of this issue.
I notice that while both you and Lee took your shots,neither of you really refuted my basic message. That Bush’s stance on gay marriage is a ploy to insure the evangelicals participate in the election.
So let’s leave it at this. I have a theory. Theories are evaluated by how well they explain known facts.
If Bush wins,(I think he’ll win about 40 states)soon thereafter he will drop attempts to pass the FMA.
You’ll no doubt call it a coincidence.
I’ll call it vindication.
PS. your calling me on my 10,000 to one comment was reasonable. It was a spanking I deserved. I’ll watch it in the future.
Joker-
Her name is Molly. She’s a little sore today because she jump out of the window of the van at 35mph. She has lost her full window priviliges.
Voting for my dog is a protest vote. Bush spends money like my wife and Kerry nags me like my mom.
Scotty B must be one rich dude with an Oedipus complex.
=
Division, I picked up the info on the Mustard and Sarin rounds on Fox News they ran a couple of stories on this, the last being about a month ago to my knowledge. The first one was discovered as part of an unexploded roadside bomb. It was unclear if the terrorists who planted the bomb knew that the warhead contained Sarin. Since this time many more have been recovered in various locations but it does not appear that any single large stash has been recovered. The media in general have played this down due to the fact that these rounds appear to be
Gulf War sirca.
A few points for y’all to ponder:
1> Be honest, Bush-bashers — how much of your opposition to his re-election would go away, if Bush (and Ashcroft) shared your opinions on the Drug War, sexuality, and/or pornography?
I think that, for many of you, those social issues are your personal “oxen” that you think are being gored … and that may color your opinion on other issues.
You also see Bush/Ashcroft as the facilitators of theocracy … and as I have said before, they would face vigorous oppositon from many evangelical Christians, along with all those you would normally expect to oppose such a move, were they to try. However, I don’t see them even trying to do this.
2> If we were to elect Kerry and (somehow) he was able to socialize health care:
a) would that lead to driving the private sector out of the healthcare industry (except in positions where they would be the equivalent of a government contractor), thereby leaving the government in the position where it could not only control the funding, but effectively control the access, to healthcare services?
b) would this also lead to much wider dissemination (legally or illegally) of your medical information, to parties like, say, life insurance companies?
c) is the combination of (a) and (b) more threatening (both in terms of probability and effect) to your civil liberties and inalienable rights than a Patriot Act-empowered/stereotypical-zealot version of John Ashcroft?
I think it is … but there are many in this nation who would trade their freedom for a free Band-Aid in this manner. Which is the greatest threat?
Anyone will do a better job than George Bush, Georoge Bush jr should never happen