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?

=

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sorry, bad code last post.

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?