How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!
- Thread starter I'mSpartacus!
- Start date
- Status
ClonaKilty
Member
I voted for W in 2000, but was very glad to vote Libertarian in 1996.
We cannot allow Repubs to take gun owner / small government issue voters for granted. Voting Libertarian when the Repubs offer up only tired old party hacks like Bob Dole does indeed send a message to the RNC that if they want to win, they have to have a candidate who takes a firm stand on these issues.
I'm very upset with W over his backing of steel tarriffs & quasi-socialized medicine. So, I'll happily vote Libertarian in 2004 if W renews the AWB (yes, yes assuming it hits his desk). Judging from others on this Libertarian-leaning board I surmise I'm not alone.
We cannot allow Repubs to take gun owner / small government issue voters for granted. Voting Libertarian when the Repubs offer up only tired old party hacks like Bob Dole does indeed send a message to the RNC that if they want to win, they have to have a candidate who takes a firm stand on these issues.
I'm very upset with W over his backing of steel tarriffs & quasi-socialized medicine. So, I'll happily vote Libertarian in 2004 if W renews the AWB (yes, yes assuming it hits his desk). Judging from others on this Libertarian-leaning board I surmise I'm not alone.
Nope, HBK, I didn't miss it. I rejected it.
I know you don't, and you're not alone in that. It is very frustrating to watch how frustrated people get with this concept. Let me try again.
It is a lot easier to complain about how the country is going downhill than it is to really look into the exact things that your own party has done in the past to contribute to -- or even cause -- the trends you are complaining about. (See http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/E_LandMines.html for an example...)
It's a lot easier to shut your eyes and pretend as if these guys are the solution, and not a big part of the problem, than it is to admit that your voting patterns might have caused them to act this way.
It's a lot easier to just pull the lever with the (R) after the name, than it is to do your homework and decide who really supports what you believe in -- and then support them, with your time and effort and money, even knowing that few people have the integrity to vote their consciences and so your candidate is going to lose no matter how many people really agree with him and what he stands for.
You can complain that the libertarians really "ought to" vote Republican, for whatever reason. But it's nuts to say that they are libertarians because they are lazy, uninterested, or selfish. Those are not the memes that drive libertarian thought or values.
As a libertarian, I do care what happens to other people. Because I care what happens to people, I want to be left alone and I want them to be left alone. I want the government off my back and off your back. If my neighbor's kids are starving, I might go hungry myself in order to help feed them -- but I will not steal from you in order to help them, nor will I pretend that it is moral to steal from you in order to help them. I'd rather see them starve than to see you enslaved.
If that strikes you as selfish do-nothingism, I don't believe we have enough in common for meaningful communication.
pax
When freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the source of the natural improvement of the human condition. -- Brian S. Wesbury
HBK
member
That all makes sense to me, pax. To be honest, what I was referring to (doing nothing) and the one issue that would keep me from voting Libertarian is abortion. The one thing I'm worried about this election year is appointments to the SCOTUS. I KNOW Kerry will load it with liberals and we will be fubar. Bush has appointed some very conservative judges and that's what I want him to do if he gets reelected. Most people on here don't believe that he will, but they are ignoring the appointments he has already made. I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years.
fallingblock
Member
That's the point, HBK.....
"I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years."
************************************************************
It's a difficult decision to take, especially from the Libertarians point of view, but Bush is the best chance to bolster the SCOTUS that we're going to have for a while.
The Libertarian candidate will not be elected, therefore the outcome will be JFK appointing judges
.
I understand the principle involved, and I am in agreement with most Libertarian ideals, but voting Libertarian if you can stomach voting for Bush will only damage our firearms rights.
"I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years."
************************************************************
It's a difficult decision to take, especially from the Libertarians point of view, but Bush is the best chance to bolster the SCOTUS that we're going to have for a while.
The Libertarian candidate will not be elected, therefore the outcome will be JFK appointing judges
.I understand the principle involved, and I am in agreement with most Libertarian ideals, but voting Libertarian if you can stomach voting for Bush will only damage our firearms rights.
JPM70535
Member
I am going to vote for GWB in the November election for one reason, and one reason only, I am better off now than I was 4 years ago when Slick Willy was pres. The few stocks I own are steadily gaining in value without being overvalued. Interest rates on purchases I am likely to make are the lowest I can remember, and while gas prices are too inflated to be be anything but profiteering on the part of the Oil Conglomerates, at least there are ample supplies. (Can you remember rationing) Under GWBs watch , my net worth has increased considerably more than under the previous admins. watch. (The above statement applies to every Term presided over by Repubs. Just to clarify, I am not a Capitalist and have no great stock portfolio and had no silver spoon at birth.
I still have the right to keep and bear arms, albeit with a duly issued permit that should not be required, a circumstance that I fervently believe would not exist today had AL BORE been elected.
When I travel by air ( as seldom as possible ) I feel safer than I did prior to 911. Despite the fact that I would feel safer still if my CCW applied to Air travel.
I feel my chances of retaining RKBA are infinitely greater under another GWB watch than under one presided over by a documented Liberal whose choice to associate with a traitor to this country (Hanoi Jane) can never be justified . For any veteran to have anything but contempt for her boggles the mind. (Picture her sitting at an AA station opining as to how she wished she could be shooting down American aircraft). If the Repubs don't beat Kerry to death with this association they are passing up a golden oppertunity. IMO all we need is for an avowed liberal like Kerry to appoint Supreme Court justices of a like mind, and my RKBA are a long forgoten mermory.
3rd party alternative? Just as soon vote for Kerry, it amounts to the same thing. Libertarians among us need to be aware that the majority of main stream Americans do not accept the Libertarian view that drugs should be legalized, and like myself, could not vote for a candidate who espoused that belief. A 3rd party candidate with the potential to win in a National election would not live long enough to do so. (Think George Wallace)
So in spite of the man's failings, I will vote for GWB and hope like hell he is victorious
JPM
I still have the right to keep and bear arms, albeit with a duly issued permit that should not be required, a circumstance that I fervently believe would not exist today had AL BORE been elected.
When I travel by air ( as seldom as possible ) I feel safer than I did prior to 911. Despite the fact that I would feel safer still if my CCW applied to Air travel.
I feel my chances of retaining RKBA are infinitely greater under another GWB watch than under one presided over by a documented Liberal whose choice to associate with a traitor to this country (Hanoi Jane) can never be justified . For any veteran to have anything but contempt for her boggles the mind. (Picture her sitting at an AA station opining as to how she wished she could be shooting down American aircraft). If the Repubs don't beat Kerry to death with this association they are passing up a golden oppertunity. IMO all we need is for an avowed liberal like Kerry to appoint Supreme Court justices of a like mind, and my RKBA are a long forgoten mermory.
3rd party alternative? Just as soon vote for Kerry, it amounts to the same thing. Libertarians among us need to be aware that the majority of main stream Americans do not accept the Libertarian view that drugs should be legalized, and like myself, could not vote for a candidate who espoused that belief. A 3rd party candidate with the potential to win in a National election would not live long enough to do so. (Think George Wallace)
So in spite of the man's failings, I will vote for GWB and hope like hell he is victorious
JPM
HBK & fallingblock,
I'd buy that argument if it weren't the same argument presented every year ... in order to get freedom minded folks to do the same thing we have always done. And if it weren't that what we've always done is just to roll over and take it, because the only other supposedly-viable option is so much worse. And if it weren't that every time we vote for these guys, the same thing happens.
Insanity is doing the same thing you have always done, and expecting to get something different than you have always got.
As always, we are told that this year's election is more vital than some nebulous election that will happen down the road. This year's issues, this year's court appointments, this year's legislative proposals, this year's political battles, are all (and always!) more vital now than they will be during any non-specific 'future' election year. So we should hold our noses now and vote for the lesser of two evils, saving our indignation and our moral choices for some time in the hazy future.
But the argument itself is nonsense, designed to get us all to roll over and take it yet again. When are we going to be stronger, in a better position, more free? We're watching our rights dribble away, bit by bit, and all we can think to do is to keep electing the guys that keep making it happen. Will we be stronger and in a better bargaining position after the last vestige of our rights has finally vanished?
You think you're voting for smaller government and lower taxes, but every time you elect these guys, you get bigger government and higher taxes (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even when the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).
You think you're voting for increased respect for the Constitution, but every time you elect these guys, the Constitution gets a little more irrelevant (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even when the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).
You think you're voting for the RKBA, but every time you elect these guys, a little bit more infringement happens (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault...) and we lose just a little bit more of our broad freedom (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault...). We're all wringing our hands in fear that the AWB will be renewed (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even though the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).
All we have to do is just do what we've always done, but do it more and do it more emphatically. THIS year, it'll work. THIS year, the folks who have always traded away our basic human rights will suddenly realize that we don't want them to do that anymore, because if they do, we'll -- we'll -- we'll -- I know! -- we'll write them a nasty letter, and tell them we'll never vote for them again! -- if they don't learn to respect our rights.
But we will, of course, vote for them again after all. Because after all, this year's court appointments and political battles are more important than the ones that'll happen sometime in the hazy future. And we'll try to guilt all our likeminded friends into doing the same as we are, because after all, what else are you gonna do? Vote Democrat??
I'm just sick of playing that game, and won't do it anymore.
I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then says that he believes the piece of legislation on his desk does indeed violate the 1st Amendment, but signs it anyway.
I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then promises to sign a piece of legislation violating the 2nd Amendment if it crosses his desk.
I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then lobbies for and signs a piece of legislation radically undermining the 4th Amendment.
He may get into office again, but he won't do it with my vote. I will not vote for an oath-breaker.
pax
The best defense against a usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry. -- Bill Buckley
Jay Kominek
Member
HBK, I'm not trying to jump on you here or anything, but have you read, say, Michael Badnarik's position statement on abortion? (I noticed while looking this up that Gary Nolan doesn't seem to have a position statement on his web page. I'm a little disappointed, there.)
I havn't been following politics as carefully as I should've for as long as I should've, but it seems to me that the Libertarian position on abortion is starting to shift slightly, sort of towards a stance of "its usually wrong, but making it illegal will just force people to travel to canada to get it done - what do you want us to do, perform pregnancy tests are the borders?" kind of thing. (For What Its Worth)
GoRon
Member
Dean couldn't even make it through a Democratic primary without imploding. How do you expect him to lead the free world?
HBK
member
Dean was a joke to begin with, but Kerry is no better.
I must have missed that part of my civics class that discussed the popular vote. I only came in on the day they discussed the electoral college, during which there was a lively discussion of how a candidate could receive less than the majority of the vote and still win the Presidency. There was also some talk about the history of why the Founders set things up that way, but I guess it's not important as I missed the whole lecture about how the popular vote replaced the electoral college.
Or were you talking about Gore's hissy fit recount demands of certain cherry-picked Democratic strongholds?
atek3
Member
Chris shouldn't it be the reverse? I've always thought the dems were socialist and the repugs were fascist
In that case, sucks to be an American . In five years all of the fascist fantasies being conjured by the D's and the R's in DC will be real, no fantasizing required. If you want a taste of things to come, watch England. They are always about 10 years ahead of us when it comes to the latest police state tactics. They got the RIP act and we got USA-Patriot. They are getting National ID cards, mark my words, so are we!
atek3
PS I seriously wonder who will doom America more, Bush or Kerry. On one hand, Bush's "Toilet Paper Dollar" monetary policy are ruining us. On the other Kerry will raise taxes to the moon, further impoverishing America. Oh well.
atek3
Member
Voting republican is worse than doing nothing. It's promoting the dirty fascists. Fascists with no respect for free speech, privacy, gun rights, don't forget who signed GCA 68, FOPA 86 ( He knew it had the MG provision, if Reagan had principles he would have vetoed and told congress to try again.), and the import ban. Oh ya and don't forget those liberty-promoting endevours such as RICO and the modern drug war.
HAH. Of course. The last year was simply the Reflation of the bubble, spurred by artificially low interest rates, a refinancing boom, short term stimulus, and the accumulation of record levels of debt
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-6/1076829455102834.xml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north181.html
http://www.peacockfutures.com/beware_echo_bubble.pdf
http://www.prudentbear.com/
Adding to the Two Trillion (with a T) dollar personal debt level in this country.
Come on... All commodities have soared in price (or rather the dollar has plummeted versus real things...like oil), included in this is oil. Oil is ~35 dollars a barrel, oil used to be ~20 dollars a barrel. Texaco isn't in this game for fun, they exist to make profit. Adjusted for inflation, gas isn't even that high right now:
http://www.narprail.org/gas.htm
(Note, CA and a few states are different because they have stupid laws mandating expensive formulation)
Rationing caused by Nixons stupid price controls, not by insufficient supplies.
Your "paper wealth". Remember, Asset price bubbles crash as hard as amazingly as they rise. Be careful.
Republicans control the house, senate, and presidency, shouldn't we have nationwide concealed carry? Oh wait, thats right, republicans talk the talk, all the while kowtowing to the demands of stupid soccer moms.
When I fly I grind my teeth at being strip searched and treated like a common prisoner in one of our fine prisons (which by the way imprison more humans per capita and over all than any country in the world! Are we free or what?)
Hello? RKBA in this country IS a long forgotten memory, and a bushevik appointee to SCOTUS isn't going to change that one bit.
atek3
fallingblock
Member
atek3......
Ranting is not reasoning....just ranting
It was Carter, not Nixon, who egregiously mishandled the "OPEC oil shock".
I like the idea of criminals being imprisoned, as long as they are given a fair trial.
You'll note that Britain's "Diversion" system is a colossal failure at reducing the crime rate there.
I'll vote for Bush only because not doing so will assist Kerry in more quickly diminishing my Second Amendment rights.
Ranting is not reasoning....just ranting
It was Carter, not Nixon, who egregiously mishandled the "OPEC oil shock".
I like the idea of criminals being imprisoned, as long as they are given a fair trial.
You'll note that Britain's "Diversion" system is a colossal failure at reducing the crime rate there.
I'll vote for Bush only because not doing so will assist Kerry in more quickly diminishing my Second Amendment rights.
Last edited:
While he was still governor of Georgia? That would have been quite a remarkable feat.
(Hint: Carter did not become president until 1977.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html
Say what you want to about Carter's mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis, at least he decontrolled domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production, and proceeded with deregulation of the trucking and airline industries.
fallingblock
Member
Thanks, idd.....
My miscommunication !
I was on my way back from making lunch to edit that bit, but not in time.
What I wish to say is that it was Carter rather than Nixon who mishandled the situation begun by the Arab Oil Embargo.
If you'll check the dates of the most serious fuel shortages and rationing.
you'll find that these occurred on Jimmy's watch. Poor Jimmy just couldn't seem to bring himself to deal with the crisis. 55mph limits, 55F. thermostats, and still it wouldn't go away!
"Tricky" Dick was a bit caught up in other matters at that time as well .
************************************************************
"(Hint: Carter did not become president until 1977.)"
************************************************************
Well, don't blame me! I voted against him!
My miscommunication
!I was on my way back from making lunch to edit that bit, but not in time.
What I wish to say is that it was Carter rather than Nixon who mishandled the situation begun by the Arab Oil Embargo.
If you'll check the dates of the most serious fuel shortages and rationing.
you'll find that these occurred on Jimmy's watch. Poor Jimmy just couldn't seem to bring himself to deal with the crisis. 55mph limits, 55F. thermostats, and still it wouldn't go away!
"Tricky" Dick was a bit caught up in other matters at that time as well
.************************************************************
"(Hint: Carter did not become president until 1977.)"
************************************************************
Well, don't blame me! I voted against him!
Last edited:
atek3
Member
Carter was (stupidly) trying to cope with the effects of the NIXON-era price controls (shortages). And there was rationing under Nixon's reign.
Whoa there cowboy, are we talking rights-violating, thieves, rapists, and murderers? Or are we talking people getting busted for NON-rights violating crimes, such as owning a rifle with a 15.75" inch barrel, possession of a bag of pot, etc. etc. Because over half of the prisoners in federal jail eating government on your dime are there for drug crimes. Add in gun "crimes" and I'm sure the number is even worse. In state Jails, 20% are their for drug crimes. Because of mandatory mins. people getting tagged on drug charges are spending a longer time in jail for POT than SEXUAL ASSAULT. Don't believe me? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/match.html
Prohibition of alcohol caused violent criminals to take over the trade. Are drugs any different? I think not.
atek3
fallingblock
Member
Whoa, atek3......
"And there was rationing under Nixon's reign."
************************************************************
The long lines and the really severe rationing came mostly on Carter's watch...but he was stupidly trying....
************************************************************
"Because over half of the prisoners in federal jail eating government on your dime are there for drug crimes..."
************************************************************
Drug use is a crime in most jurisdictions. Fair trial? conviction? do the time.
Don't like drug laws? Get 'em changed.
Same with gun laws. You want a 15 3/4" rifle barrel?
Get a transfer stamp.
or
Change the law.
It's really that simple.
The vast majority of drug criminals knew they were breaking the law...they just assumed they wouldn't be caught, or didn't care.
************************************************************
"people getting tagged on drug charges are spending a longer time in jail for POT than SEXUAL ASSAULT."
************************************************************
It must be time for madatory sentencing for sex offenses.....
************************************************************
"Prohibition of alcohol caused violent criminals to take over the trade. Are drugs any different?"
************************************************************
Nope, nor is prohibition of guns.
Get the laws changed.
If you KNOW it is a crime to do drugs...don't do the drugs.
I've known a lot of potheads and some junkies, and nobody was forcing them to break the law.
Silly laws? Of course, in many cases.
Are druggies so dimwitted they don't know about the laws? I suspect not.
"And there was rationing under Nixon's reign."
************************************************************
The long lines and the really severe rationing came mostly on Carter's watch...but he was stupidly trying....
************************************************************
"Because over half of the prisoners in federal jail eating government on your dime are there for drug crimes..."
************************************************************
Drug use is a crime in most jurisdictions. Fair trial? conviction? do the time.
Don't like drug laws? Get 'em changed.
Same with gun laws. You want a 15 3/4" rifle barrel?
Get a transfer stamp.
or
Change the law.
It's really that simple.
The vast majority of drug criminals knew they were breaking the law...they just assumed they wouldn't be caught, or didn't care.
************************************************************
"people getting tagged on drug charges are spending a longer time in jail for POT than SEXUAL ASSAULT."
************************************************************
It must be time for madatory sentencing for sex offenses.....
************************************************************
"Prohibition of alcohol caused violent criminals to take over the trade. Are drugs any different?"
************************************************************
Nope, nor is prohibition of guns.
Get the laws changed.
If you KNOW it is a crime to do drugs...don't do the drugs.
I've known a lot of potheads and some junkies, and nobody was forcing them to break the law.
Silly laws? Of course, in many cases.
Are druggies so dimwitted they don't know about the laws? I suspect not.
I'mSpartacus!
Member
Good point Greg!
atek3
Member
Whoops, sorry guys. (I did a lil more research and it turns out it was LBJ's POS signature on the bill. I'm Bob Dole, Bob Dole voted for it though )
Oh well.
atek3
)Oh well.
atek3
POLITICS 28 questions in need of answers from Kerry
By George Will
02/15/2004
Inconsistenties lace his position on issues, view of facts.
WASHINGTON
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO? When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"? When you denounce "lobbyists," do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?
Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging the First Amendment right of all Americans to "petition the government for a redress of grievances"?
In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough? You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President George W. Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, you advocated economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression? On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote, "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot? You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995, you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals failed?
You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree?
You say you agree with what Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Some in Massachusetts advocate amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How would you vote?
Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it." In December, you saved your sagging campaign with a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome? How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat Bush. As one who believes - well, who says - there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
Copyright Washington Post Writers Group
E-mail: [email protected]
Just more fuel for the fire. Good questions none the less.
By George Will
02/15/2004
Inconsistenties lace his position on issues, view of facts.
WASHINGTON
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO? When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"? When you denounce "lobbyists," do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?
Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging the First Amendment right of all Americans to "petition the government for a redress of grievances"?
In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough? You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President George W. Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, you advocated economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression? On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote, "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot? You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995, you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals failed?
You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree?
You say you agree with what Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Some in Massachusetts advocate amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How would you vote?
Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it." In December, you saved your sagging campaign with a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome? How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat Bush. As one who believes - well, who says - there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
Copyright Washington Post Writers Group
E-mail: [email protected]
Just more fuel for the fire. Good questions none the less.
- Status