tab545

Both Kerry and W want to stay in Iraq. Kerry actually says he wants to increase the active military by 40,000 soldiers, which is a higher number than I have heard W quote. I think Kerry, in an effort to overcome the last three decades of anti-military statements, may feel a need to prove his critics wrong by being more pro-military than he would otherwise be. W, on the other hand, clearly favors a large military, but he will act as he and his people think prudent, and not out of a desire to prove critics wrong. I think Rumsfeld should be given credit for thinking creatively about how to reduce the size of the active military in this era.

There is a saying that "Only Nixon could go to China," meaning only somebody who could not be accused of being soft on Communism could make such an opening without losing credibility. Similarly, maybe only a Republican can prune back the military. Rummy has some ideas in this regard. Unfortunately, we will not see that tested until we have ourselves out of active wars overseas, hopefully in 2-4 years.

One of the things I ask myself is which candidate is more likely to prune back the federal government. I may actually vote for the Libertarian candidate, just to show that some people favor that route: fewer "well-intentioned" government programs, less government management of the private economy, less official moralizing about how we should be leading our lives, fewer subsidies to politically-powerful industries like agriculture, and overall a more free, less "organized" society.

I just find that the more our politicians sit around thinking up ways to "help" us, the more they just create expensive, self-perpetuating government structures that eventually hurt as much as help. Partly because the politicians are NOT actually honestly trying to help, and are just doing as they are told by powerful lobbying groups (like the agricultural products industry), and then partly just because the "law of unintended consequences" means that even well-intentioned government programs will fail and maybe even make the problem worse.

I give Bush credit for wanting to figure out an exit strategy from the current "pyramid scheme" of social security. We need to find a way to make it self-funding, instead of the current scheme in which current workers pay for current retirees. That worked under the demographics of the 1950s, but with the huge growth in the retirement population, it is unsustainable. Kerry is taking the cheap route of telling groups of senior citizens that he will keep it the way it is, with current workers paying for current retirees. That just means the social security taxes will need to increase more and more, channeling more money into the senior citizens.

When social security was enacted, senior citizens as a demographic group were relatively poor; but now they are the wealthiest segment of our society. Yes, there are some poor elderly people, obviously, and we should find a way to provide a "safety net" for them (because they largely cannot work, at least not full-time); but that should NOT mean that we channel money to all old people, just because they're old. When an elderly person with enough money takes more out of the social security system than he or she has contributed (with interest), then the program is simply welfare for old people, done NOT because they are poor or needy in any sense, but simply because they are old. We need to means test social security.

My parents, for example, are very nice people, but they have a comfortable income and own their little condo, and have an adequate retirement income from a pension, and there is just no reason why current workers need to be paying my parents welfare. Should a 35-year-old worker with 4 kids making $45,000 really be paying a payroll tax of 7%, matched by a payroll tax of 7% from his employer, so my parents can save a little more money? That, to me, is an illegitimate use of the power to tax.

Paying for this huge demographic disaster over the next 30 years will be very expensive, as we fund out of current tax revenue the accrued promises of the past; but Bush at least seems to understand, and be willing to raise, the problem that we need to keep it from getting worse.

Bush created this prescription drug benefit, which is horrible, expensive, and benefits drug companies and the elderly -- neither of which need more money. So Bush is definitely not always good on spending. I think he may be guilty here of what Kerry may be guilty of with the military, that is trying so hard to prove that he is not opposed to social programs that he spends too much.

I suspect both W and Kerry will be unable to resist the farm lobby, so we will continue to pump money into agribusiness under the misleading heading of "protecting the family farm." Rotten, evil waste of money, but neither will change it. The Libertarian asks whether giving money to Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland through agricultural program is so important that it justifies taking money from the wage earner on threat of physical force -- it is simply true that you will be hauled off and sent to prison if you do not pay the taxes that are used to pay agribusiness. It's evil, and an example of the kind of debate we need to start having more in the US.

The PATRIOT Act and all of its intrusive government measures will survive and thrive under either Bush or Kerry. Kerry has long been a proponent of financial controls, dating back to the only thing he apparently ever did while a Senator, namely investigating international banking fraud and money laundering. Neither has any real feel for telling the government to back off and mind its own business. So I don't think either will really change the state of civil liberties in the US.

The War on Drugs is a disaster, and neither party seems willing to be LESS tough on crime by legalizing soft drugs. I don't like the idea of lots of people using drugs more, but I will accept that if we can stop imprisoning so many of our young men, take some of the drug profit out of urban gangs, and spend our resources on other things. Only the Libertarians will speak out against the loss of civil liberties inherent in the Drug War. Neither Bush nor Kerry will change the Drug War.

I do think W will hurt terrorists more. I think Kerry will wish the UN could help more, but the UN is not good at acting, period, and I think the US needs to be able to act against terrorists, including "unilaterally." Waiting for the French, the Chinese, the Russians, and the developing countries to agree with the Eurocratic UN on action is good for some things, but not for finding Osama.

Kerry wishes cooperating with Europe would help more, and I wish it would, too. I have spent lots of time living in Europe, and I love Europe. I don't hate the French, but I also do not expect they will support the US. I think the French, and many Europeans, think they need to counteract the weight of the superpower. The French haved acted independently for a long, long time, with their own nukes, only limited cooperation with NATO, their own private colonies in Africa where they act unilaterally whenever they please. That's not a criticism, but it is stating that I don't think the French want to help Kerry or the US. They think we need to hear critics, and need to explain ourselves to the French as a matter of respect. The fact is that we do not need French support -- we have long since learned to live without it, most clearly ever since they started denying us even the right to overfly their territory on military missions from the UK to the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The French are entitled to withhold it, and I do not think Kerry will get anywhere in trying to get Europe to put soldiers in harm's way in Iraq, for example.

I do not think we needed to go into Iraq, but neither W nor Kerry offers a different route. Now that we're in Iraq, the patriot in me makes me want to support our actions there; but the Libertarian in me makes me want to avoid entanglement in a complicated ethnic and religious battle half a world away. I actually do think W will be just as willing and able to get us out of Iraq as Kerry over the next four years, realistically.

(And by the way, the Guardian's letter-writing campaign will backfire. It is too bad they feel they have the right to chime in by such an intrusive means as writing to individuals. It would freak me out if I got a letter to my personal address from some foreign group poking through the voting records. Without getting mean, if Brits want to influence the world like they could in the good old days of being the most powerful nation on the planet, they need to work through their own government. It's pitiful to whine to Clark County, Ohio about their powerlessness. Play your cards right at home, and your own leaders will be able to exert influence on the world stage. I love the Brits, and if anybody can influence the US, it is indeed the Brits; just not through those whiny, arrogant, preachy letters.)

Overall, I suspect the Republican candidate will be more likely to be influenced by government solutions that require less government control, less spending, and rely more on the creative genius of many millions of individuals, rather than the creative genius of a group of a dozen great central planners. That is a hope as much as a belief, but I do think the Republican will, over time, be better on this count than the Democrat. The Libertarian would be best, but ain't no Libertarian getting elected for a long time. I think I'll vote Libertarian to send that message, faintly as it will be heard; but W beats Kerry for me.

Just wanted to chime in.

kscarrol

Very well said Tab.

JDN

From the Children of Vietnam Vets

kigerka

You guys don't give up. I am amazed at the information you all find. Quite interesting

tab545

The fact of his Paris meeting, mentioned in the video, should get more play when we consider what kind of diplomacy Kerry would conduct. It at least gave legitimacy to our opponents in a time of war.

Kerry did what he did, predicting that the future of American politics lay in a Euro-style pacifism, sharing the supposed dream of the Communist leaders of a more "humane" future for the human race. He was wrong that pacifism would solve the problems of our world. He was not prescient enough to see that the Communists were more brutal, and their regimes more inhumane to humans and their spirits, than most feared at the time. He made his bet on the future, and he was wrong. It is amazing, really, that he could hope to command our military today.

I just can't see him winning. Next time the Democrats can surely find a more internationalist leader, like Kerry plays the part of, without having to dig so deep as somebody with Kerry's subversive past.

JDN

Hi, kigerka. You would be surprised at how much of this type of stuff I could post. The local AM statiton, WBAP 820, had a hilarious skit by Hal Jay this morning on Kerry's "faux Goose Hunt". They have replayed several times during the day by popular demand.

Sportsman John? Hardly!

Plenty more where that came from.

gmartin

Tab very well put
One comment I have is about your position that the prescription drug plan will benefit the pharm. companies. On the surface this may seem true and at the outset it will. This is what many physicians thought that Medicare would be for them as well. It started out as a boon and now its a bust. All these programs amount to is government price controls, initially reimbursement will be high but as soon as costs start piling up or as with Medicare a procedure becomes to popular, the payment takes a nose dive. All private insurances base their rate on a multiple of medicare. This is quite an ingenious plan that in the end will benefit the elderly.

Although I consistently vote republican and am conservative - ask member 545- I do find myself in the Libertarian camp very often. Just remember the ramifications of a vote for Ross Perot in 1992. I can never listen to Fleetwood Mac anymore without cringing. Don't "waste" your vote on the Libertarians this time.

JDN

This is provided for those unable to view one of the Sinclair Broadcast Group television stations that are showing the controversal documentary, Stolen Valor. It is a chilling testimony from the fellow military veterans that John Kerry betrayed.

Broadband

Dial-up

Sinclair Broadcast's David Smith noted that, "The experience of preparing to air this news special has been trying for many of those involved. The company and many of its executives have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature, as well as calls on our advertisers and our viewers to boycott our stations and on our shareholders to sell their stock. In addition, and more shockingly, we have received threats of retribution from a member of Senator John Kerry's campaign and have seen attempts by leading members of Congress to influence the Federal Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from broadcasting this news special. Moreover, these coordinated attacks have occurred without regard to the facts since they predated the broadcast of our news special."

Mr. Smith further stated, "We cannot in a free America yield to the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence behavior and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not agree. I have been encouraged, however, by the thousands of e-mails and other messages I, and others, received supporting Sinclair's efforts to hold firm to its ideals in the face of a firestorm of controversy which, ironically, was actually based on misinformation. We also took comfort in the positions of other media organizations which supported our right to present this story notwithstanding any disagreement they may have with the content, as well as in the words of Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC who refused to block the program, noting that to do so would be 'unconstitutional' and 'an absolute disservice to the First Amendment.'"

Watch it yourself.