Why Bush will get my vote!

[Lone_Gunman]

Admittedly Greg, my understanding of economic issues is limited, and I won't necessarily argue your point, but in my overly simplified viewpoint:

If the government increases spending, then revenue, in one form or another, must increase also, which will likely translate into a tax increase.

I just plain don't think the government ought to subsidize people at the expense of others, and thats what Bush's medicare plan will do.

Even if taxes, by some miracle, don't have to increase to fund it, then really we would have had to pay less taxes in the first place without the program.

 

[Greg Bell]

"I just plain don't think the government ought to subsidize people at the expense of others, and thats what Bush's medicare plan will do. "

To a certain degree, I am sympathetic. However, our country has long made a commitment to the elderly and less fortunate. My real problem is whether what we are doing is helping or hurting. I think we might very well be doing more harm than good.

"Even if taxes, by some miracle, don't have to increase to fund it, then really we would have had to pay less taxes in the first place without the program."

True, but my point was that the Republicans do like tax cuts. Democrats posture about targeted tax-cuts but never deliver -- or at least not in the past 40 years.
GHB

 

[Jeff White]

I happen to like the Republican position on tax-cuts. I happen to like the fact that we have had no new gun legislation since they took power in 94'. I happen to like the fact that they are going to let the AWB die. I happen to like having our military budget given priority for a change. I happen to like an AG who recognizes the 2nd Amendment, etc.

I think you are giving them way too much credit. The tax cuts are miniscule compared to what they need to be to really stimulate growth, but they are a start. You are wrong, there has been new federal gun legislation since 94. They rewrote and passed the gun free school zone act after the Supreme Court declared it uncostitutional. Bush just signed a bill banning plastic guns that don't exist. While the AG says he sees the 2d amendment as an individual right, Ted Olsen has yet to argue that position before the supreme court.

Contrary to what Bush promised in the campaign..help was not on the way for the military. The administration has steadfastly opposed concurrent receipt for VA disability and military retired pay, continuation of combat pay for soldiers who are deployed, they are supporting the closing of many DOD schools and commisaries. All of this while we have troops in harms way. The only people who have seen a budget increase are the contractors and segments of the defense industry.

I agree that there is no Democrat currently running that can beat Bush. The polls look a lot like they did in December of 91. There was no disaster that caused Clinton to beat Bush in 92. The economy was beginning to recover, just like it is now. But the senior Bush alienated the base...he signed an executive order banning more guns then any legislation had up to that point. Then he raised taxes.

The junior Bush has The Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, The Education Bill he let Ted Kennedy write, and the expansion of Medicare all against him. The conditions are the similar to what they were in 91. As I said earlier...the democratic base isn't going to stay home. If the republican base does...Bush can still lose.

As for worrying too much...someone has to do it. If you don't see a democratic administration refusing to give up power I think you're giving them more credit for being Americans first then they deserve. They lost in Florida. They lost every recount. They lost every unofficial recount done by media oganizations. Yet they still say they won. The temper tantrum of theft and vandalism in the White House is proof enough as to what kind of people they are. The never ending war on terror will give them all the legal cover they need to try to stay in power if they are ever elected again.

Jeff

 

[grampster]

Was saving this thread for a time when I was bored and looking for some spirited discussion. I have jumped from the first page to this spot because I saw something that stunned me on the first page. Malone Laveigh made a comment that I agreed with (other than guns, o'course). I almost fell out of my chair as I don't agree with Malone much, if at all. She said, "When both parties are corrupt, gridlock is good." I totally agree, in fact, gridlock is almost always good when it concerns gubmint. When they are gridlocked, they can't spend our money! Tip O' the Michigan hat to Malone.

Gotta go back and read everything now................

grampster

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, gridlock is good!

I really thought if the Republicans ever got control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, we would see tax cuts, smaller government, less intrusion into private affairs, and of course no gun legislation.

It appears we have the exact opposite with the first three of these, and our president is working hard on the last as well.

 

[Greg Bell]

Jeff,

" think you are giving them way too much credit. The tax cuts are miniscule compared to what they need to be to really stimulate growth, but they are a start. "

I agree, bring em' on. But 8% growth ain't bad!


"You are wrong, there has been new federal gun legislation since 94. They rewrote and passed the gun free school zone act after the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Bush just signed a bill banning plastic guns that don't exist."


Oops. Let me rephrase then, there hasn't been any gun legislation that has any effect whatsoever on anyone. If they want to ban Plutonium zip guns let them.

"Contrary to what Bush promised in the campaign..help was not on the way for the military. The administration has steadfastly opposed concurrent receipt for VA disability and military retired pay, continuation of combat pay for soldiers who are deployed, they are supporting the closing of many DOD schools and commisaries. All of this while we have troops in harms way. The only people who have seen a budget increase are the contractors and segments of the defense industry."

Once again, not everybody is going to get everything they want or even need. More can and should be done. The military is a lot better off with Bush than Clinton. I only know a few grunts that don't wince when I mention going back to the Clinton/Clark/Cohen/Aspin years.

"I agree that there is no Democrat currently running that can beat Bush. The polls look a lot like they did in December of 91. There was no disaster that caused Clinton to beat Bush in 92. The economy was beginning to recover, just like it is now. But the senior Bush alienated the base...he signed an executive order banning more guns then any legislation had up to that point. Then he raised taxes. "


The economy was growing at nowhere near 8% at the end of Bush the elder's third year. Further, he had just slipped below 50% in approval ratings in Dec 1991. Bush's 63% approval is higher than any other president finishing his third year. The "read my lips" lie was a disaster for papa Bush. The economy was still wheezing. W has nothing even close to this haunting him. Furthermore, Bush has Karl Rove to run things. Sunnunu was run out by "dentist-gate" and Lee Atwater was dead of cancer by this time in 91.

Also, you shouldn't worry about the Republican base. All polls indicate W is adored by the base. It has been the swing vote that Bush has been shakiest with (naturally). He is going to win barring disaster.


GHB

 

[Balog]

An analogy for the history majors out there.

"Supporting the lesser of two evils overthrew Nazi Germany (13 million killed)! And ushered in the USSR (25-50 million killed)!"

Giving power to evil is BAD! Even if it's the "lesser of two evils." A POTUS who signs a law he admits is unConstitutional is evil. He deserves to lose.

 

[Jeff White]

Greg said;

Oops. Let me rephrase then, there hasn't been any gun legislation that has any effect whatsoever on anyone. If they want to ban Plutonium zip guns let them.

Well I wouldn't say it has no effect. In the police station where I work, there is a city map with circles outlining 1000 feet from every school. A large part of the city is covered by that law. Don't know if I could get the US Attorney to prosecute, but if you'd like to come up, I'd be more then happy to arrest you on that law that has no effect whatsoever on anyone The law is there and sooner or later someone will use it. And what kind of research is being stifled because it's illegal to make a plastic gun? No law is harmless.

The military is a lot better off with Bush than Clinton. I only know a few grunts that don't wince when I mention going back to the Clinton/Clark/Cohen/Aspin years.

Bush tells the troops he loves them, Clinton made it clear he despised what they stood for. I entered the Army in December of 1974 and retired last October 31st. The back to back deployments, the continual misuse of the force (tankers and artillerymen used as Infantry and MPs) , Rumsfeld's refusal to expand the Army into a force large enough to meet our commitments and the actual cuts in benefits and quality of life is going to do more to destroy the volunteer military then anything Clinton ever did. The signs are starting to show up. The reserve components may never recover from the misuse they have been subjected to. The men and women currently serving are the best trained and most intelligent and motivated force the world has ever seen. Yet the administration is intent on destroying it to prove that the new way to wage war is with machines.....

The "read my lips" lie was a disaster for papa Bush. The economy was still wheezing. W has nothing even close to this haunting him. Furthermore, Bush has Karl Rove to run things.

The Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, The Education Bill, Prescription Drugs....As was said in another thread Karl Rove is a whore, who will steer Bush into whatever the polls say. Karl Rove will tell Bush to sign the AWB renewal if it reaches his desk. Was Karl Rove the genius who told 'W' to publically state the Campaign Finance Reform bill was unconstitutional and sign it anyway?

Also, you shouldn't worry about the Republican base. All polls indicate W is adored by the base. It has been the swing vote that Bush has been shakiest with (naturally). He is going to win barring disaster.

Here's where you are the most wrong. I'm part of the Republican base and I don't adore "W". There are a lot more like me out here. And we are centers of influence. When people ask me why I am upset with Bush, I tell them. There are 10 long months to go before the election. A swerve back to the right is necessary and it's necessary now or "W" will suffer the same fate as his father.

Jeff

 

[romulus]

I agree with Jeff that Bush can lose this one. However the post was about "why I will vote for Bush." I've stated my reasons, and even though I fear for the future of the GOP, I fear more for the future of the nation and will vote for GW...

 

[Al Norris]

Philosophy 101, final exam: If faced with 2 possible choices, both of which can be seen as bad, only that one choice would be worse than the other, what will be the result of your choice?

I drew my line in 92. I have not voted for either of the 2 major players since then. If that was the only choice on my ballot, I left that portion blank.

For all of you that say such action got the other guy elected, poppycock. You are entitled to your opinion, allow me mine.

Oh... and the answer to the exam? The result will be, of course, bad.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Philosophy 101, final exam: If faced with 2 possible choices, both of which can be seen as bad, only that one choice would be worse than the other, what will be the result of your choice?

Logical fallacy "False Dilemma":

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

I am faced with more than two choices in the context of this debate. I can vote for Bush, vote for a Democrat, vote for a Libertarian, or not vote at all.

I absolutely despise the attitude among you "freedom lovers" that seems to hold Republican violations of the Bill of Rights as "the lesser of two evils", as long as the Democrats would have shafted us worse. Tell me that thing about "moral relativism" again?

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I don't want people on my side who absolutely will not vote for a true freedom candidate unless they are sure to be among the majority of votes. So you're only going to vote pro-freedom if it doesn't cost you anything, and if you can be sure to be counted among the winners?

With "allies" like these, it's no wonder the country is sliding downhill at full speed, down the slippery slope of incrementalism. Keep voting for the "lesser evil", because "non-Republicrats have no chance of winning", and you will get the country you deserve. If you won't see the total elimination of the rights you cherish, your children most certainly will.

 

[Al Norris]

Marko, you have perfectly illustrated what so many here don't get: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

That and that there are actully more choices than just two. And why so many are unwilling to select a third choice. It is a fact that as long as people refuse to vote for a third party for fear of losing, then the 2 major parties will remain in control. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

The real question then becomes: Why do people who have chosen evil, seem surprised when it is evil they get?

 

[Marko Kloos]

Even worse: they keep insisting that it's not really evil.

During the last three years, we've had Campaign Finance Reform, the Patriot Act, a Medicare reform that is the biggest and most expensive social handout vote bribe since Roosevelt's New Deal, publically-stated support for an AWB renewal, and military deployments that will gut the Reserves and wreak havoc on re-enlistment rates for years to come.

If any or all of the above had happened with a Democrat in the White House, the resident Republicans would be positively speechless with rage, and we'd have calls of armed revolution and impeachment. But since it's a Republican at the helm, it's all good.

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

Bush will not get my vote. I'll be voting Libertarian, my conscience clear.

 

[grampster]

Al and Marko,

The problem of "choosing the lesser of two evils" is that a half of those eligible to vote seem to do just that and are content. I have often wondered just exactly who are the other half of the eligible voters that don't vote (demographically) and what in the world would have to occur in order to inspire them to get involved? And then what would that mean if they did?

In my participation in government, I have looked for the party that mirrors my position most closely. I have never bought into the myth of "I vote for the man, not the party" as the man represents the party and is most likely controlled by it anyway.

Given the circumstances lately, one wonders if any party actually mirrors my position anymore!?



grampster

 

[Russ]

For those of you who thinks it doesn't matter, look what has happened in California in the last 5 to 6 years. The Democrats have taken overwhelming control over both houses of the Legislature and a Democrat ( the first one in 20 years) got elected Governor. You may remember Gray Davis who was recalled a few months back. He and the Dems in the Legislature took the State from marginal on guns to being the poster state for the Brady Campaign. Now with a RINO Governator who knows.

If you care at all about your guns and vote for the Dems to control , you need to have your heads examined. The Republicans or Repugs as Malone, our resident leftist would say, are not perfect but 99% of them are pro 2A. Vote for Libertarians if it makes you feel better. May as well vote for Lyndon LaRouche as much chance as they will ever have to obtain office.

 

[Balog]

Russ: 99% are pro 2A?!?! ***? If that's true, why has our Repub House, Senate, and President done nothing to preserve our rights?

 

[w4rma]

They lost in Florida. They lost every recount. They lost every unofficial recount done by media oganizations.

…
“More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.â€
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is at least dimpled. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 107 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is detached from one or more corners. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 72 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is fully detached from ballot.
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 430 votes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

…
Final Adjusted Total,
including first media recounts
for all Florida counties:

Bush 2,915,426 --- Gore 2,915,928

For the count we've been keeping since Election Day, these are now the final numbers for a state-wide cumulative media recount.
…
http://www.unknownnews.net/election2000.html#count

 

[Russ]

Balog,

Why a ***?

What have the Republicans done to curtail your 2A rights since they caved on the "Crime Bill" when Clintoon was in office?

Bush has said he will sign the AWB if it reaches his desk. It won't get there. The House voted to overturn this Turkey once. Remember back when Sonny Bono was there? The Senate will never go along but the House will not let this come to Bush's desk.

Vote for HoWIERD Dean. He'll be much better

 

[MicroBalrog]

What have the Republicans done to curtail your 2A rights since they caved on the "Crime Bill" when Clintoon was in office?

Left them intact - letting the ground for the next infringement.

 

[Jeff White]

Sorry w4rma, you lost. The blatant attempts to steal the election in Florida by counting votes on ballots that were rejected for various reasons were criminal. It wasn't only criminal it was pathetic.

Count ballot as a vote if chad was dimpled?
Count ballot as a vote if chad was detached at one or more corners?

Hold ballot to forehead and divine by ESP the the voter meant to vote for Gore?

Handle those ballots enough and you'll get chads falling out all over the place. We vote with punch cards here. It's not hard to use the little stylus and properly mark them....You have made my point for me. If we are ever unfortunate enough to elect another Democrat into the White House, they will not give up power willingly. What will the excuse be to remain in power next time?

Face up to the fact that you lost, accept it and drive on.

Jeff

 

[Balog]

Russ wrote:

Why a ***?

You made a blatantly untrue statement. If 99% of the party controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency truly believed in our rights, then why have they done nothing!?!?!?!?! Call me crazy but "They haven't hurt us anymore, yet" doesn't fill me with glee about those who "represent" me.

 

[w4rma]

The blatant attempts to steal the election in Florida by counting votes …

673 Law Professors Say

By Stopping the Vote Count in Florida, The U.S. Supreme Court Used Its Power To Act as Political Partisans Not Judges of a Court of Law.

We are Professors of Law at 137 American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Flordia law, the five justices were acting as political proponents of candidate Bush, not as judges.

It is Not the Job of a Federal Court to Stop Votes From Being Counted
…
http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/statement.html

…
Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
…
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.

A: Read the opinions for yourself:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount) - PDF format
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.pdf
(December 12 opinion) - PDF format

[Andrys’ alternative for the Dec. 12 opinion, including Dissents]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
(December 12 opinion and dissents) - HTML browser and PDF formats
…
http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/supremeqanda.html

 

[dischord]

Most races are not close enough for the Libertarians to play a spoiler role, so I'm always amused at people getting apoplectic at how we’ll lose our guns if we vote for LP candidates.

In nearly all races, it is safe to vote LP “to send a message.†Even if by some miracle the LP vote were to double, the outcome in most districts would remain the same. If you can’t change the results, why not at least send a message?

Why waste your vote on a Republican when polls show that his/her likely margin of victory/loss is outside anything that LP votes can affect?

YMMV in closely contested districts.

 

[Russ]

Balog,

Congress doing nothing? In my wildest dreams!

Did you, do you, really expect them to repeal the 1934 and 1968 legislation? Won't happen in my lifetime. The AW ban will be sunsetted until the Dems get back in power. Then it will be the first thing on the agenda. Just a matter of time. Doing nothing is precisely what Congress should be doing.