The terrorism issue is in large part a construct of the Bush administration. Before 9/11 they dismissed it as a Clinton issue. But Al Qaeda terrorist were around for most of the 90's, they even attacted the World Trade Center. The Bush administration after 9/11 suddenly saw political milage in the issue and have been using it as a cover to impliment their reactionary social and economic program.
Phoenix - Seems to me like you've got a decent bead on what these two guys are and what the most important issue facing this nation is. Bush is an imperfect man who seems to me to be putting his best foot forward where it counts: attempting to make the world a safer place for Americans (and thereby safer for all). I also think he has good instincts on his tax policy, and would like to see him stick around to push the spending cuts he's now touting.
As to Kerry... I was sitting in the choir loft on Sunday, when the minister asked the congregation to stand and sing the next hymn, "In Christ There Is No East Or West". I leaned over to another choir member and quietly quipped, "Kerry's a lot like that." I'm pretty sure the congregation did not notice that much of the choir was fighting to keep from erupting in laughter. :wink:
Kerry's not the devil, he's just the wrong guy to lead this nation at any time, but especially at this time. First, in order to lead you have to pick a direction. Kerry doesn't seem to know who he is or where he wants to go; or at least he doesn't seem to want to be honest with the people about these important details. (People may not like Bush's direction, but at least he's leading.) Kerry's record of voting against the military and weapons systems ought to concern anyone who wants this country to maintain the ability not only to defend itself but to show the world that we are so able to defend ourselves that no one would consider attacking us.
That's my $0.02. Also, I am glad to have stumbled across this thread and learned of your reasonable, rational position. I have complained much of late of those who do not think where these important issues are concerned. It's nice to see that there are some others here who do.
BTW, is anybody arguing that the claim made in the RNC letter is incorrect?
Quote:Moveon.org Voter Fund is Funding Its Federal Election Advertisements with Non-Federal Dollars, which is Illegal
Can anyone offer me evidence that this charge is not true? (Frankly, I don't know whether it is or is not true, but I find it fascinating that the same people who clamored for campaign finance reform are now acting as if it is dirty pool to have the law applied to their causes.
Occom Bill--
http://www.truthout.com/docs_04/030804C.shtml
The original source for the story was CNN.
Scrat wrote:Can anyone offer me evidence that this charge is not true? (Frankly, I don't know whether it is or is not true, but I find it fascinating that the same people who clamored for campaign finance reform are now acting as if it is dirty pool to have the law applied to their causes.
They couldn't care less about campaign finance reform as long as whetever the outcome is works in their favor.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1203/121603-moveon.htm
Scrat wrote:BTW, is anybody arguing that the claim made in the RNC letter is incorrect?
I know of no such evidence. At the same time, I see no evidence in
the RNC letter that the Republicans will make any effort to sue Moveon. Since this would be the obvious way of clarifying the issue, I see the absence of legal action as evidence that they see their case as good enough to scare some stations and swing some voters, but not good enough to actually survive a trial.
There is no option of sueing Thomas. The process is to file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission and they investigate if they think it necessary. If they investigate and find violations of the law then they have the authority to issue fines.
fishin' wrote:There is no option of sueing Thomas. The process is to file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission and they investigate if they think it necessary. If they investigate and find violations of the law then they have the authority to issue fines.
Thanks for explaining the process, fishin! May I ask how you know they investigate? I searched "FEC complaint against moveon" on news.google.com, and I didn't find any article saying this. I did find
this though:
Quote:Bush-Cheney officials said they won't ask for the ads to be pulled off the air because the FEC doesn't have that authority, and because a court is unlikely to act before the FEC finishes its review of the new campaign finance laws. The object of the complaint is to highlight what Bush campaign officials say are Democratic hypocrisies and to prod the FEC to act more quickly than it has in the past, the officials said.
Still listening, and digesting. I really appreciate the thoughtful and cogent way that you all are presenting the isues.
Like Thomas, I am a small "l" libertarian, although nowhere as knowledgable or articulate as he is. Therefore, as I have mentioned in the past, I am resigned to the fact that there would probably be no candidate from the major parties that would satisfy me completely.
In 2000, I voted for Gore, as "the lesser of the two evils". At the time, I did not think that Gore would make a strong leader, but that he would be competent, and not do the country any major harm.
My concern now, between Bush and Kerry, is that either candidate, because of the state of both the US and the rest of the world, is capable of doing the country a LOT of harm, in different areas.
I think that it is important that all the issues are examined with a magnifying glass. In my own head, I need to separate out which issues are crucial, which are important, and which aren't critical in the larger scheme of things. I think that this thread is one good place to accomplish this.
Thank you so much again for your thoughtful reflections, and please keep them coming!
Pheonix
The decision to vote for Bush or Kerry should be an easy one. If you are satisfied with the Bush presidency and are willing to tolerate four more years of it, vote for Bush. If not we have no other choice but to vote for Kerry.
Were you to go to a DR and he told that you needed an operation or would die in say six month. However, the operation is very dangerous and may not turn out to be everything you hoped for. Would you opt for the operation?
Phoenix
While it is true in many ways voting for the unknown is like buying a pig in a poke. While Kerry is not an unknown however, there is a great difference between voting as a member of congress and being the one who in effect has the nation in the palm of his hands. No one can predict with certainty how he will however, I would rather take my chances with the new broom than the mangled and broken one. Some rise to greatness others do a Bush.
OCCOM BILL wrote:terrorism seems to have been reduced and rogue states do appear to be taking less hostile positions
I dunno....I liken it to boiling water in a pot. It's bubblin' away, you slam the lid shut on it...then you're forced to hold it shut....but eventually the pressure proves to much and the whole thing boils over.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't want rogues thinking there is a wimp in the Oval Office.
But your assumption here is derived from an American's way of believing how someone from, say, bin Laden's area of the world would think. People outside of America do not think like Americans.
Get my meaning?
caprice wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:terrorism seems to have been reduced and rogue states do appear to be taking less hostile positions
I dunno....I liken it to boiling water in a pot. It's bubblin' away, you slam the lid shut on it...then you're forced to hold it shut....but eventually the pressure proves to much and the whole thing boils over.
Clinton made no effort to put a lid on the pot or to turn down the flame. We got burned repeatedly and badly as a result.
If we put the lid on AND turn down the heat, we might keep the pot from boiling over for at least the foreseeable future.
Scrat wrote:caprice wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:terrorism seems to have been reduced and rogue states do appear to be taking less hostile positions
I dunno....I liken it to boiling water in a pot. It's bubblin' away, you slam the lid shut on it...then you're forced to hold it shut....but eventually the pressure proves to much and the whole thing boils over.
Clinton made no effort to put a lid on the pot or to turn down the flame. We got burned repeatedly and badly as a result.
If we put the lid on AND turn down the heat, we might keep the pot from boiling over for at least the foreseeable future.
Any conservative worth his/her salt has to view some of the Bush administration's fiscal and social policies with alarm. Would it be better with a Kerry presidency plus a Republican senate and congress? Probably. The Republicans would challenge a rash Kerry much more vigorously than they will criticize a rash Bush.
But would the country be more secure; will the war on terrorism be fought as aggressively, will the fiscal and social policy be more expedient with a Kerry presidency? I've seen zero evidence of that based purely on his voting record.
And the thought of Kerry judicial appointees extending probably to the end of my lifetime is simply too ghastly to consider.
Given the choice, I'll vote for a strong and decent, if somewhat imprudent, George W. Bush.
Thomas wrote:Thanks for explaining the process, fishin! May I ask how you know they investigate? I searched "FEC complaint against moveon" on news.google.com, and I didn't find any article saying this.
I know they investigate because that's what they are chartered to do. lol
"About the FEC
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."
http://www.fec.gov/about.html
For the latest list of actions taken by the FEC ytou can look at:
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040308cases.html
