A 'Liberal With Sanity' Votes For Bush

No, it doesn't. Kerry would be at LEAST as competent as Bush and probably a lot better.

What does it say about the job done by the incumbent, tho, when people are ready to vote for absolutely anyone but him?

Cycloptichorn

perhaps that's because it's the only thing people will listen to for more than two minutes without their eyes glazing over and their heads slumping onto their chests.....at the end of the day Americans need to blame themselves .....

Let's see, Bush spent three years learning (?) on the job and came up with what not to do. Now he may as well be labled as a lame duck in the last eight months going on twelve. He hasn't presented anything but the "just around the corner" nonsense.

lame hardly describes this paraplegic fowl....

Very nice call, Cycloptichorn. Also, as long as we keep fighting the war with terror will never end or lessen up. Especially when you're fighting the people. The people have better points then our administration. I mean, I get drawn in by Osama before I do with Bush, and that's the truth. You hear me Bush, that is the ******* truth. And since you love the patriot bill, your probably reading this and this is now enough info. to take me in for questioning/imprisonment.

By the way the word which came out as **** was puck with an f, obviously.

Soz- Thanks for the links. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.

Have fun! :-D (And I respect that you are willing to read it.)

soz- If I could find a credible, rational reason to vote for Kerry, I would.

Sounds good, but what do Kerry and Edwards have in mind to accomplish this? How can we secure our borders, ports and airports w/o intruding on some personal liberties? I don't think that we can have it both ways.

I have a yearly pass to Busch Gardens. When I got the pass, they had me put my hand into a gizmo that takes a hand print. Whenever I come into the parking lot, I have to show my driver's license, together with the pass.

When I get to the gate, I have to put my hand in a thingy that checks my handprint. Then a guard looks through anything that I am bringing in.

Is that constricting my liberties? In a sense, probably. The folks at Busch now have a record of each time that I went to the park. Does it bother me? Absolutely not. In fact, one day I went to Busch when it was rather crowded, and the girl at the hand machine waved me through without checking. I was actually angry about that.

There must be some way that citizen could get some kind of a national ID that could speed people on their way in airports, bus terminals and seaports. We have the technology. We ought to use it.

What if Busch Gardens was selling the information to the government so they knew all about yoiu in case you were in disagreement with their policies? How would you feel abouit it then? It's the sroage and usage of the info that's the problem....

Disclaimer: I am writing this right after reading Pheonix's initial post. Apologies if I am posting thoughts that have already been discussed here.


I think Ed Koch is wrong twice over. For one thing, I don't see why "international terrorism trumps all other issues". Sure, on 9/11 it killed 3000 people, and that was 3000 too many. But gun accidents kill three times as many people every year. If America brought the rate of gun accidents per person down to Canadian or European levels, it would save many 9/11s worth of human lives every year. Yet no American declares that "gun accidents trump all issues", and nobody declares a "war on guns". Or a "war on traffic", which causes even more unnecessary deaths than gun accidents, or a "war on diabetes", which causes even more unnecessary deaths than traffic accidents. Or ....

I guess you get the idea by now. By the only measure that counts -- how many people get killed -- international terrorism is a sideshow. Many other political issues, which few people ever lose any sleep over, kill a lot more Americans than international terrorism. I can't see why this real, but second-rate threat is being blown so much out of proportion, and why it should "trump any other issue". Perhaps it's because a scared electorate conveniently refrains from asking its government tough questions, and because collapsing Twin Towers make better camera fodder than high insulin levels and fat people dying of them. But I don't want to spread conspiracy theories here.

Now for the second point I think Ed Koch is dead wrong on. Even if I concede, for the sake of the argument, that "international terrorism trumps all other issues" -- why is this an argument for George Bush, not against him? He didn't invest much in homeland security, and the places that got the most investment per inhabitant were pork-hungry red states as endangered as Montana, Kansas and Idaho. New York, Washington and other places that were actually attacked, got the least homeland security spending per capita. And the $20 billion George Bush promised New York as emergency aid never arrived in full -- as Ed Koch knows very well, being New Yorks former governor.

In terms of foreign policy, Bush withdrew personell and money from the war in Afghanistan, which had attacked America via Al Quaeda, to fight the war on Iraq, which neither had nor planned to. What message does that send to the planners of potential future 9/11s? "If you attack us, we will retaliate with overwhelming force -- against somebody else." How is that good strategy? I don't get it. George Bush has done nothing to show that he's any good at fighting the war on terrorism, and I am mystified by Ed Koch's decision to sing Mr. Bush's praise because he's such a great terror fighter.