Fellow Moderates, please vote for Kerry

---

I realize this isn’t a political forum, but I feel compelled to make my argument for this election in every forum in which I post. If one only person reads this and changes their mind (on either voting for Bush, or not voting at all), I would be ecstatic. If no one cares, than I have neither lost nor gained anything. Please also feel free to argue with me, but please refrain from mindless attacks (argue the issues). As you read this, please remember that I am a political moderate. I often side with Republicans on legal issues, economic issues, and foreign policy issues. I support a smaller government; I have voted Republican and Democrat with roughly equal frequency; and as I argue later in this post, I think American unilateralism can be a good thing, just not with Bush at its helm. I am also not alone. Many fellow moderates and conservatives believe that we’re heading down the wrong path. See Washington Post: Conservatives for Kerry; The Economist Endorses Kerry (It previously endorsed Bush, and before that, Dole. The Economist typically leans conservative); Links to various endorsements (various endorsements from newspapers, many of which are conservative and have not endorsed a Democrat for decades.) We need to take a stand on Tuesday. Here’s why I urge my fellow moderates (and conservatives) to abandon Bush and vote for change: 1. Bush’s fiscal policies are irrational and dangerous . We’ve seen an unprecedented spending spree in conjunction with unprecedented tax cuts. Some have likened Bush’s policies to the fiscal policies of Reagan—is this fair? After lowering taxes on several occasions, Reagan also raised taxes on several occasions to reduce the burgeoning deficit. Reagan was actively pursuing a small government/low tax model. He vetoed several large spending bills, and his inability to significantly reduce government spending can be partially attributed to his lack of control over congress. Mr. Bush does not have the same excuses. Congress is Republican, and every spending bill that has found its way into Bush’s hands was passed. Despite our deficit, he continues to propose expensive projects and equally expensive tax cuts. Bush has criticized Kerry as a tax-and-spend liberal, but, as many have noted, Bush has proven to be a cut-taxes-and-spend conservative. Does this make any sense? This isn’t Reaganesque—not by any stretch of the imagination; this is simply mortgaging our future and failing to control the budget. Bush has asked Americans on several occasions to forgive the deficit on account of the recession and the war. This is pure nonsense. This great country has seen far worse wars and far worse recessions than anything we have experienced in the last four years. We have never seen such a deficit. Neither does 9/11 explain this crisis. The cost of that tragedy was minor compared to the deficit. Bush has no excuses, and not surprisingly, most of our nations’ economists do not support him, not even in his alma mater, Harvard Business. Harvard Business: Open Letter to the President . In fact, his ratings have been almost universally poor among professional and academic economists. The Economist: Poll of Academic and Professional Economists (this link may not work. I don't know if you need a subscription. If it fails, try http://www.braydenking.com/weblog/archives/000433.html); 10 well known Nobel Laureates in economics endorsing Kerry. No, this isn’t the leftist academic establishment ganging up on him. Please recall that President Reagan had quite a few supporters among professional and academic economists—many of whom identify with the right. After all, the small government model made some sense, and it has quite a bit of clout in business and economic circles. What about Mr. Bush’s model? What is his model? Surely he doesn’t think that cut-taxes-and-spend is sustainable? But he continues to stubbornly follow such a plan. 2. Bush’s foreign policy was hopeful, and unlike many of his detractors, I think that his plan to liberalize and democratize Iraq was worth careful consideration. Terrorism is a major threat, and we need to find some way to curb it at its source. The best way to do this is to promote liberal and democratic ideals—and yes, we should act unilaterally if need be. But Bush didn’t pay enough attention to the facts, and he continues to commit this sin . War is a rough instrument for social change. There are times when we must use, and there are times when other instruments are more appropriate. See A Moderate View on Iraq (Philip Gordon, a moderate, arguing for the democratization of the Middle East, but criticizing the means used by the Bush administration); see also A Conservative View of Iraq (Francis Fukuyama—a neo-conservative’s criticism of the war, touting a somewhat less idealistic view than more famous neo-cons. Fukuyama maintains the possibility of unipolarity). Most importantly, if we plan to use the tool of war, we MUST commit the necessary resources. Bush’s plan to strike quickly with few troops and let democracy spontaneously bloom was utterly naïve. There were many voices in this country that had considerable knowledge of Iraq and her populace—he chose not to listen to them, particularly his own State Department. Instead, he focused on an a priori plan, and he was satisfied by scant and questionable empirical evidence. Yes, there were others that were fooled, but Bush is the executive—he controls the state department and the CIA, and he is our commander in chief. If he were truly the strong leader that he seemed after 9/11, he would accept responsibility—it was not congress that constructed these intelligence reports, nor was it the UN, nor was it France—it was the executive branch, and Bush is its head. Tenet failed Bush, but he failed us by dogmatically pursuing this war without a serious analysis of the situation. What should we expect in the next four years? Can we return to empiricism? Has Bush forsaken that discipline? And what of unipolarity and unilateralism? Although many of my fellow Bush detractors will scoff at the idea, I personally believe that the U.S. after 9/11 had the moral capital, the political capital, economic dominance, and enough military dominance to assert some degree or unipolarity in world relations—we might have led the world against terrorism (and other threats) if we played our cards right. We could have used our power for good—but we used it irresponsibly. On Bush’s watch, terrorism did not decline in 2003, as initially reported, but stayed even or rose, even if we don’t count the sharp spike in terrorist attacks in Iraq . Official, Revised Terror Figures in 2003. Thus far, 2004 has been even worse—terrorism has risen dramatically on Bush’s watch. Terror Figures for 2004, as of Sept.. We have also witnessed a huge failure in nuclear non-proliferation (Iran/N.Korea). Instead of taking a balanced approach to our war on terrorism (i.e. dealing with already identified terrorist threats, strengthening rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, and asserting a stronger anti-terrorist stance with regards to the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia), Bush focused our efforts almost entirely on Iraq, and he offered only weak evidence and a shifting rationale for the war on that country. Bush frittered away our political and moral capital. The unipolar dream, with a strong Amercian leadership of the world, has never been so distant since the cold war. We need to wipe the slate clean in this next election. Perhaps we can revive the dream of American world leadership, but the taint of this administration can only bury it. 3. Bush’s treatment of internal dissent within his cabinet and agencies has not been healthy or productive. While Bush’s management style is refreshingly decisive, the downside of this decisiveness is that he appears to come to conclusions before he sees the facts (or even the questions). Many have criticized his close-minded approach. Wash. Post: Bush's Leadership Style- Decisive or Simplistic. But we don’t need the often slanted approach of the media to see a disturbing trend. What happened to treasury, for instance? When Bush fired O’Neil, many came to his defense, including me (at first). We said: O’Neil was incompetent, and he needed to go. That much was true, but it begs the question: Why was O’Neil heading treasury anyway? He was a businessman, not an economist. With his extremely limited knowledge of macroeconomics, there was no reason to put him in treasury, unless Bush was more interested in having close allies than competent managers. In the end, Bush’s only misjudgment of Mr. O’Neil was his ability to stay quiet. Harvey Pitt’s story at SEC looks, more or less, the same—although he was an even more inappropriate appointment. And what of Treasury now? Mr. Snow is shockingly mum in the face of unprecedented deficits. What about the State Department? Bush didn’t listen to them when they warned of looting and power vacuums in Iraq (e.g. arms looting, artifact looting, and internal civil strife). Bush has nearly silenced Mr. Powell with regards to Iraq—it seems that he’s been relegated exclusively to Darfur, even though the facts suggest that he was more level-headed and sensible about Iraq than the rest of this administration. And the EPA? When the EPA’s research pointed to facts contradicting Bush’s policies, he silenced them instead of reevaluating his stance or allowing their research to continue. Knight-Ridder: Bush Accused of Suppressing, Distorting Science ; CBS: White House Edited Greenhouse Reports. In keeping with the appallingly high-turn around in our agencies, Christine Todd Whitman left the EPA. It worries me that so many in Bush’s administration have resigned, been fired, or been muffled. The clear message that Bush has sent to many (if not all) of the major agencies is “shut up or get out.” To return to Mr. Reagan, he also had a strained relationship with his agencies, but this was partly because he intended to trim their budgets. Mr. Reagan had a coherent policy of deregulation. Bush has shown neither a desire to trim budgets nor any honest attempts to deregulate. Does Bush have any sort of coherent plan? 5. To conclude, let me emphasize this last part to conservatives and fellow moderates: Mr. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. I don’t know what he is. He is certainly not small government; he is not libertarian; he is not a Clintonian technocrat; he is not a uniter or a moderate (as he once claimed). Bush represents a hodgepodge of incoherent policies, and he is unwilling to critically look at those policies or to accept responsibility for his errors. No matter what you do on Tuesday, please do not vote for Bush because you identify yourself as a Republican--Bush is nothing like the Republicans that have come before him. He is also far from a moderate. -Steppenwolf

Vote Bush!

Fellow members please vote for Bush. Kerry has continously lied, rushed into different subjects before the facts were straight, and flip-flopped on so many subjects that it's pathetic.The first thing I'll touch on is the latest lie Kerry spread. He said that ammunition and weapons were stolen right under our noses in the middle of the dessert and that Bush is at fault.First off that is a total lie. We have satellites in space several miles over the earth that can take pictures of 2 coke bottles in clear enough view to tell they're 2 differnt bottles. The amount of ammuniton and weapons that were supposedly stolen would take 100s of trucks to move it all out. So with our technology, our troops, and our intelligence how could that many vehicles come in & take the gear out without leaving tracks or trace on camera? It couldnt! It's a huge lie. They interviewed a high-ranking officer that said he oversaw the destruction of 700 tons of munitions just under his watch. He couldnt account from every single piece of weaponary, but that's a lot of stuff to be accounted for!Kerry lies. He says he's pro second amendant & supports gun right? Why did the NRA give him the lowest rank in history? He got a big fat 0! He lies! He voted against gun rights so many times it's pathetic. He went on to say there would be a draft if Bush was elected. Why would he straight up lie?He flip-flops - just look at what he's said. First he's for the war. Then he's not. Then he is. He votes against guns, but then votes to ban them. Man I could go on & on about how this moron tells the viewers only what they want to hear.Look at this man's integrity. Look what he said about Dick Cheney's daughter. Even some democrats said he was out of line and that he was disrespect. What kind of man would talk like that? Insult a person just to make himself look better? This man is not fit to be president of this country! Everyone says Bush is dumb, a recent military test showed that Bush had a higher IQ than Kerry. In this moment in our lives people need to realize that we need a real leader in the white house. One that puts our freedom and safety first & fights to keep our country safe. I can promise you that we dont need a democrat in the office at this time in our country's history. I could continue to dig up info on this moron Kerry, but I dont have the time to do so right now. I urge EVERY voter out there to vote for Bush. If you value your gun rights, if you want your kids and family to be safe, if you want jobs to continue to rise, you need to put Bush back in office.

Why do black people vote for Democrats? The democratic party paid the president of the NAACP to simply say he was friends with Kerry & that he supported him. What kind of person would do that? Please name one thing the Democrats have done to help blacks in the last 4 or 5 democratic terms. The last thing I can think of is the civil rights movement and that has been a long time ago. Kerry is much richer than Bush. What makes you think that just because he's a democrat that he's going to support black people's rights? I got news for you, he's not.The latino/asian communtiy VOLUNTARILY endorsed Bush. Both blacka and hispanics are minorities, so why does get paid for support and the other doesnt?

Powerlifter and Websex: I doubt I can convince either of you, but setting aside social issues, and even foreign policy--issues on which rational minds disagree--how can you rationalize Bush's fiscal policies? We have gone from an enormous surplus to the biggest deficit in history. What's going on here? Bush continues to increase spending while decreasing taxes. That's the equivalent of quitting your job and going on a spending spree. Does that make any sense?

Deficit... I don't agree with Bush on that. Giving tax cuts in time of war is just stupid, but I agree with Bush on a lot more issues than I agree with Kerry.Kerry at beginning of Campaign: This war is wrong and it should be stopped.Speech last night: We will get those terrorists!Kerry says: We must support our troops, I know what war is like!Kerry acts: I don't agree with the bill to fund troops body armor.WTF?Kerry: Pro-ChoiceMe: Pro-LifeI stopped eating heinz ketchup ... if you understand the statement I just made then I'll give you a cookie. lol.

The war will naturally cause deficits in the economy. I believe in cutting taxes on the small business. These guys normally pay individual income tax, and that's just not right. We need to support our small businesses, so they can hire more employees and grow bigger, therefore employing more workers.If you look at the economy while Clinton was in there, IT WAS ALREADY BAD! The economy is on the rise, and I can gaurantee you it will continue to rise if Bush stays in office.My main worry is natural security. Bush took action to remedy that problem & will continue to do so. He's tearing apart the alcada system. Sure Bin Ladan is still on the lose but his following & ring of crime is being unrivaled. I can promise EVERYONE that we DO NOT need a liberal democrat like Kerry in office at a time of war! We need Bush in there. Why would you change the director of a job when he was only half-way through? The new guy wouldnt know what to do. It's basically the same thing. Bush led us into this war (which was a good thing) and I think he should lead us through it! Remember, freedom is NOT free.And stephenwolf you were right. You coulnt pay me 1 million bucks to vote for Kerry! He's an idiot and a liar!

I stopped eating Heinz also. I eat Hunts & its far better than Heinz!!!!!

lol. Here's your cookie! :grin:

FIRST OFF ALL the democractic party DID pay the NAACP to speak for them! Look it up before you call me a liar, dumbass. I wouldnt say something was true if I didnt know it was! And the bad thing is that it's very much legal. A party can pay anyone they wont to speak for them!How does affirmitvie action level the playing field for all? I wanna see what you have to say about that subject.Polls are shit! The polls are never accurate. They say the presidential race is dead even, yet the bookies (notorious for for being more accurate than the polls) have the odds 2 to 1 for Bush.

Thanks for the stats on minority voters. I too found Powerlifter's claims about minority endorsements to be a little bit bizarre.Let me also continue to push the issue of deficits. The combination of our budget deficit and current accounts deficit is alarming, to say the least. Recall that it was O’Neil’s warnings about this situation that probably got him fired from Treasury. Please read http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=24&SourceCode=20040930tbg for a very accessible discussion of this problem. Note also that former Fed Chairman Paul Volker’s comments in this article mirror much of what Greenspan has said (although, as a public figure, Greenspan has been less forward). The reason why so many ecomonomists, and The Economist, have pulled a 180 on Bush is precisely because his fiscal policies have created such a dangerous situation. Of course, I'm still curious about how Bush supporters can justify the huge deficit created over the last four years.I urge people to think about the long term. The "hot" topics in most political conversations, such as the Al Qaqaa explosives, flip flopping, Mary Cheney, assault wapons, etc., have only a marginal impact on our future. Much more is at stake, including the future of our economy.

they're not bizarre they're true. The Democratic party paid the NAACP guy 3 million dollars to speak for them. It's a fact. I just saw on the NEWS the other day where the hispanic group endorsed Bush and did so voluntarily.

Powerlifter: As I argued before, we have had MUCH worse wars, and nothing similar to this deficit. Moreover, those were predictable expenses. I don't find the war a very rational excuse.

That might be, but the majority of minority voters are voting *voluntarily* for Kerry.

I think Bush could have done a few thigns a lil different with the economy, but I think he's on the right tract. He said it would take time, and the economy is indeed on the rise.

becuase they're misinformed and racist to think that the democratic party is "their party"

Lol-- It seems I have been downgraded in stars for expressing a political view.

Yeah me too. I'm at 2 stars. I started with a 5. But dont think I de-rated you bro. You're being nice about views & I apprecaite it. I normally dont rate people unless they piss me off or do something to make me like them. besides I had already given you a 4 from a previous post. Even if you did piss me off I couldnt vote you down.

Websex: I agree that Kerry's voting record on the war is baffling, and I certainly won't argue that he's my ideal candidate. I also don't agree with him on many issues. However, many of the issues on which I do not agree with him (for instance, I would overrule Roe), are not really issues that have been delegated to the executive branch (judicial appointments are certainly executive, but we cannot appoint Justices to fulfill our social agendas--that's judicial activism at its worst). However, the economy hits me hard. I worry about the future of a nation with a fiscally irresponsible president at its helm. Yes, I also worry about foreign policy issues, and I'm alarmed by this administrations inability to admit its failures or to consider alternatives. The power vacuum in Iraq was predicted by many of Bush’s own people, and yet he doggedly pursued a military model at odds with the facts. The issues on which Mr. Bush has had (and will continue to have if he is elected) the most impact are issues for which I feel the president has failed. I cannot endorse failure on these issues with a second term.

You're the one who obviously has no idea what you're talking about! What if I dug up the artical that showed the Democrats paying Al Sharpton (I think thats his name) 3 mill? What would you say then? Would your views change at all or would you continue to think as you do?The Christian organization you described is republican becuase Republicns dont believe in abortion, democrats do. I'm gonna pretend you didnt say anythign about the NRA. Every election the NRA puts out a sheet of who to vote for & on numberous occasions Democrats got a higher rating than Republicans. They do some research before they choose which party to endorse.Heck I was talkin to a black friend of mine & he said his family would disown him if he voted Republican. LOL, I remember his words, "Hell a republican could offer reperations for slavery & they'lls till beat my ass if I voted Republican."