Reluctant Kerry Supporter.

1) I oppose the Bush/Republican effort to change the US tax system so that only payroll taxes support government. They've already eliminated estate taxes and cut dividends sharply. In a second Bush Administration we can expect to see taxes on interest follow the same path.

2) I really don't want to see a Supreme Court slanted sharply to the right, as would occur if Bush wins another term.

3) I hope that the US is already deeply enough engaged in Iraq that Kerry has to see it through to the end. Because I am uncertain of this (and more uncertain now than I was two months ago), I find myself in the position of being persuadable that Bush is a better choice.

I'll be as concise as I can. My vote, to be honest is more "against Bush" than "for Kerry."

War on terror. I believ Bush has not conducted the war on terror effectively or correctly.

Court appointments. President Bush appears to have a predilection for conservative textualists. While I recognize that conservative textualists are necessary, I believe that two of them are sufficient on the Supreme Court.

Lack of accountability. We've seen several incidents in this administration that should have resulted in dismissals at the highest levels of government. Abu Grhaib and the case of Maher Arar come to mind. Bush has merely chosen to express confidence in his subordinates; I am not aware of any evidence they have been held accountable for these missteps.

Political philosophy. I am diametrically opposed to President Bush on almost every issue.

--|PW|--

My thinking is way more "anti-Bush" than "pro-Kerry". Casting a vote for Kerry is the most effective way of me voicing my displeasure with Bush.

(Voting for the Libertarian Party is likely to be ignored -- can they even muster 1%? -- and Badnarik is a loon. The other third parties are smaller, unrepresentative of my political beliefs, or both.)

Why am I voting against Bush?

The key reasons are:
* The awful mismanagement of post-war Iraq. (The war itself was masterfully executed.)
* His total abandonment of the cherished Republican principle of small government (even things outside the War on Terror, like the gigantic prescription drugs bill)

I'm more of a Bush detractor than a Kerry supporter...

THE REGAN PARALLEL:
* Bush aspires to be Regan - he could never hope to be as brilliant as Regan.
* Regan ended the cold war by confronting the USSR; Bush sees the Middle East as his cold war.
* Regan was a charming man, and a sincere speaker which led many people throughout the world to support him; Bush is neither charming nor convincing.
* Regan believed that he was doing god's work (he used "crusade") by being tough with the USSR. It felt right because the USSR was the primary threat at the time. The threat seemed tangible. Bush was doing the right thing when he went into Afghanistan, but he moved too early on Iraq and he lost all of his faithful backers (the other 1/2 of the U.S. and most of the world). Now Bush seems more like a true "crusader" who is hell bent on changing the world to his liking instead of removing evil.

9-11 MISTAKES:
Bush lost the popular vote in the country, but after 9-11, nearly everyone in the U.S. was willing to put that in the past. We were all in full support of our new president - popular vote be damned. He had sympathy from nearly every country in the world; you can't buy this level of support. Bush had the world on a string. He could have used this momentum in a positive manner. Instead, he bullishly went ahead with his plan to invade Iraq and in the process lost the hearts and minds of mosly everyone. This was one of the largest, short-sighted, tactical errors ever made by a U.S. president.

I understand that the Middle East is a threat. Anybody with 1/2 a brain understands that. But, why did he not take advantage of the new-found love of the U.S. after 9-11? 9-11 gave us decades worth of positive foreign relations in a moment's time. Bush took all of that and threw it in the trash!

Also, after 9-11, why did he try to block a meaningful investigation of the events? He gave the space shuttle disaster more funding than he did the 9-11 disaster. I don't understand how the biggest tragedy on U.S. soil (since Pearl Harbor) did not deserve thorough investigation. It leads most people to think that he was hiding something.

THE HOMEFRONT:
After 9-11 we should have shored up our homefront defenses. It seems like the most obvious thing to do considering we were attacked on our own turf. Yet, we still have unsecured ports and borders. Now, we don't have money to make things more secure here. I've said this before, and I will say it again, "We left the back door wide open, and went blazing out the front." We are just as vulnerable to attack, and now we have a bigger threat. We are not safer!

SAFETY:
Like I just said, I feel less safe. I believe that as president, Kerry will provide just as much safety to the homefront as Bush can provide. I'm not convinced that ANY president would hand over the safety of the U.S. to the U.N. - I think this is complete hogwash.

ECONOMIST QUANDRY:
I'm not going to go into this too much, but I refer to the report in the Economist. Most economists think that Bush's plan is a loser, and Kerry's is better. This is where my for Kerry comes from. I understand that Bush inherited a recession, and we are at war. However, Bush's future economic plans don't address how we are going to pull out of our current downhill slide. The U.S., and potentially the rest of the world, is moving towards financial disaster.

MORE:
There are so many more things to say, but I just don't have the time. I was reading the Tampa Tribune today. They are a typically conservative paper. They have endorsed every republican since Eisenhower. They are not endorsing Bush (nor are they endorsing Kerry) because they don't agree with him. If you want to know more about why I'm personally not in the Bush camp - read what the Tampa Trib has to say. There are many things in this article I could just cut and paste, but I don't want to waste Bill's valuable database space.

Arrrrrgh! Trying.... to hold back.....criticism...

Be strong, Archangel. These are reasonable people making reasonable arguments - a vast improvement from what we're accustomed to from Bush detractors...

Deleted for violating the rules.

The Left is right: I don't appreciate your post. You are a condescending prick. We offer our POVs, which are completely reasonable, and you post that trash. Shame!

Chris -

I agree. These are probably the most interesting (and well spoken) arguments from Kerry voters that I've heard yet.

Thank you, Bill, for offering up this forum. This election has made for the most maddening environment for rational discourse. Your blog has done much to aleviate that frustration.

AnonySci:
Old rule from Usenet: Don't feed the trolls.

--|PW|--

Yeah "left", be nice and leave the sarcasm out. I'm actually curious to hear all their reasons too.

PW: As we say here in New Orleans, "Ya, you right!"

Bill:
Thanks for the opportunity. Most of my points have been made already, but I will add a rather subjective one.

To me, the office of the President is more than a functional one, it is also about representing America and American ideals to the world. I was a Clintonista, but I have to admit that what happened with Monica was an embaressment to me. While I did not support Reagan, I learned many things about his after his time in office, that gave me a profound respect and even an admiration for the man, there was one thing I always admired though, his class and dignity in office.

Bush comes accross to the rest of the world as at best a buffoon, and at worst a reckless cowbow. I know this becuase I travel extensively internationaly, and I live abroad. While many conservatives are willing to dismiss this fact as irrelevant, I wonder if they would if they had the chance, as I have, of talking to reasonable people arround the world, who have until now loved and supported America.

The mere fact, that it would be speculated arround the world as to whether Bush was wired in the first debate, is a serious stain our international prestige.

I find myself liking Bush at times as a person, while despising his arrogance, lack of a clear plan (other than tax breaks), and innability to admit mistakes or take responsibility. Some of my great heroes as Presidents, have been the ones who felt angst at their decisions and were willing to be self critical... This is something that our current President seems incapable of, and that to me is dangerous.

"While I recognize that conservative textualists are necessary, I believe that two of them are sufficient on the Supreme Court."

Textualism, by definition, involves ignoring ones personal opinion and looking only at the law as it is written - therefore the term textualist does not require an adjective such a "conservative" to describe it.

Congress makes law, the executive branch implements and enforces law and the judiciary determines, based on the text of the law, whether or not the executive branch acts in a manner that is compatible with the text of the law.

For our system of governance, based on separation of powers, to work properly, all judges must be textulaists.

Well, first, I would say that I think criticism of people voting against Bush more than for Kerry is unrealistic. Potential 2nd term elections are pretty much always a judgement of the incumbent's performance (I'll bet a lot of Dole '96 supporters were voting against Clinton more than for Dole). Anyway...

Against Bush:

The Doctrine
Bush reversed his stance that we should not be a world police, that we should not be nation-builders (I know everyone says 9/11 changed everything, but I disagree. 9/11 didn't change terrorism, and it wasn't close to the first time we'd been attacked. Al Qaeda is supposedly in 60 countries, and terrorism is pretty much everywhere in one form or another. We can't make it our policy to invade every country we see as harboring terrorists, it's just not possible. (If democracy flowers in Iraq and that has a domino effect in the ME, I'll be happily mistaken.)

Iraq
I disagree with Kerry and think that this was the wrong war in the right place at the wrong time. Iraq was a problem and needed to be dealt with. Resolve for the sanctions was weakening and existence of Saddam's weapons was still in dispute, so we clearly needed to act, but was invasion the correct move? I don't think so. I think it distracted the administration and possibly the military from other important work in the war on terrorism that is more pressing.

Nukes
What can I say, I'm anti-nuke. I have many Japanese friends, and have talked with people who witnessed the bomb on Hiroshima. I think that it should be our goal to prevent the manufacture of one more nuclear weapon on this planet, no matter who is making it. Our making so-called bunker-busters sends the wrong message to the world. I know the argument is that they are designed as deterrents to scare terrorist-friendly nations, but it still really concerns me that we might actually use these things.

Economy
Tax cuts and two wars? This seems to be a bad formula to me, considering our now massive deficit. Plus, we're having a serious job problem here; jobs are paying less, companies are encouraged to go overseas, unemployment stays the same yet new jobs don't materialize. The private sector is in a real mess. Jobs of course are mostly not the president's responsibility, but I think Bush has harmed us more than helped on this. No Child Left Behind and tax cuts are not the solutions to our job problems.

Balance
Having both houses of Congress and the White House controlled by one party, regardless of which one, is asking for trouble. We need balance. Say what you like about Clinton, but things went pretty well by many accounts when he had to deal with a Republican congress. Bush doesn't have to deal with democrats at all. Now I know many see this as a good thing, but I see it as pretty undemocratic. We need negotiation and compromise in government This is probably the biggest one for me, since I don't think Kerry has a ton of great ideas or anything, but he can put some balance back in DC.

Misc
* I think trying to privatize SS is the wrong way to go,
* Bush's views on homosexuality are hostile,
* He's got terrible diplomacy,
* Worst of all, he has the same exact people working in his admin. as he has all 4 years, despite the mistakes that have been made. How come no one gets fired in this administration? Clean some house and get some new voices in there. I thought he was supposed to be the CEO president.

For Kerry:

* Balance back in Washington! (sort of)
* Better diplomacy
* Kerry's view on WOT is better than Bush's (Yes, I said it). I know it can be muddled at times, but the difference I see is that Bush believes the best way to get at terrorists is to go after the states that harbor them. I see this as flawed because there are too many places for them to go instead, and we can't invade everywhere. Also, by attacking states we do not really cut off funding to terrorists, their finances are much more complex than recieving a terrorist-supporting government check. Kerry recognizes that one of the most important things we need to do in the WOT is go after the financial networks of terrorism. Terrorist groups are designed to work independently and without direct contact with leadership, but the one thing that always connects them is money. Kerry has experience taking down international criminal financial networks, and recognizes how important it is.
* I want a president who recognizes the complexity of the world, who is always looking for more information to make a better judgement. I don't think this will prevent Kerry from acting when necessary.
* I also think that if it were necessary to use military force to truly protect the US from danger, Kerry would do so regardless of world opinion. I just think he values that world opinion, if for nothing else than because better relations with world bodies and nations will help us fight the WOT.
* The Senate is a very different place than the WH. This is probably why we don't elect senators president very often, but rather governors. The senate is all about compromise and meetings, etc. I know this seems like a negative for Kerry, but I think it will be helpful in dealing with a Republican held Congress (or at least the House) and will lead to more balance in Washington.
* Kerry's entire life has been built on public service, from his fighting in the Vietnam War to his protesting against the war (debatable, I see this as a service to the public), from his work as a prosecutor to his seat in the Senate. This all points to an ambition to be president, and I like that. I believe it is Kerry's ultimate goal to become president, and once in the WH he will not hesitate to make big decisions, because he will finally be in the place where he can do so.

There's more, but I have to go now. Peace.

Interesting so far Bill. I'm still waiting to hear from a Kerry voter. Not unusual to see an election as a referendum on the incumbant though.

I wanted to add this about Reagan. I only gained respect for him after he was out of office. I was watching some footage from Regan when he was walking with Gorbachev in Red Square. This was the dialogue with Regan and a reporter:

Jon Snow (ITN): "Do you still think you're in an Evil Empire, Mr. President?"

Reagan: "No."

The thing that struck me about this was that he said "No" with such great humility. He was not pompous, not pretentious, and his response was heartfelt. He also said (paraphrased), "Things got better when whe started talking to one another instead of about one another." These things came so naturally from Regan because he meant them. I don't believe Regan ever thought that the Russians were truly evil -- it was just part of his strategy.

Bush could never be like Regan in this way. Bush will never be able to personally repair our damaged foreign relations, because he does not have the humility or genuine honesty like Regan had. We are going to need someone to heal our relations very soon. I just don't think Bush is capable.

Oops- just missed on Mantis...

Bill:

Thanks for opening your blog to these comments. It is refreshing to (finally) hear commentary that is honest and*not* a rant. (OK, I missed the deleted one.)

And thanks to all who post. I appreciate your honesty and sincerity. This is good reading.

Thanks Bill for the great post. A quick thought about David Anderson's post. He says:

"Bush comes accross to the rest of the world as at best a buffoon, and at worst a reckless cowbow."

This is also a profile of the President that might not have been if not for the Liberals painting it that way. He also states:

"The mere fact, that it would be speculated arround the world as to whether Bush was wired in the first debate, is a serious stain (on) our international prestige."

This is also a rumor that was perpetuated by angy Liberals in order to disgrace the president. I believe it is common knowledge that the president tends to wear some type of body armor when in public.

Also, hm, great literal interpretation.

Outstanding, Bill! This is a GREAT idea and I'm getting a wonderful viewpoint on, well to be honest, the opposition. What's great here, tho, is that everyone's making reasoned arguments, not spouting slogans. Wish I'd thought of it 1st. Thanks!

Mike D -

Thanks for being polite - but this is not a thread for arguing these points, so please refrain.

It’s hard to be concise, but I’ll try. My views are a combination of anti-Bush and pro-Kerry sentiments:

•I have opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. I find the doctrine of pre-emptive war very troubling. I think the Bush Administration was caught in a classic case of groupthink, and I think Kerry is absolutely correct that the antidote to groupthink is to listen to what your detractors have to say. That doesn’t mean that you cede sovereignty or give another country veto power. It does mean that when the whole world tells you you’re wrong, you should be willing to honestly listen to other points of view. As far as I can tell, Bush simply will not consider the possibility that someone else’s point of view might have merit.
• I care what the rest of the world thinks of us, and I believe that the best way to share our values with the world is to work with them, not to arrogantly flout world opinion. The Bush Administration took the goodwill of the world after 9/11 and absolutely squandered it.
• I don’t know how we’re going to fix Bush’s mess in Iraq. I agree with Kerry that the war in Iraq was a distraction that has made us less safe. I trust Kerry to be measured in whatever steps he takes more than I trust Bush to fix a situation he isn’t even willing to acknowledge.
• I resent being told that I am unpatriotic because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. Bush’s camp has been hugely successful in tapping into Americans’ reluctance to say that their sons are dying for a mistake.
• I was deeply offended when Paul Wolfowitz went before Congress and underreported the number of casualties in Iraq. But Bush let him keep his job. No one seems to be accountable for anything in this administration.
• I think Kerry’s anti-war activities during the Vietnam War have been hugely distorted. I can understand why this would be difficult for vets who were there, but those of us with a more neutral perspective should be able to respect both Kerry’s war service and his passionate opposition to the war after he came home.
• I also believe Kerry’s senate record has been hugely distorted. The way politics works in this country, the politicians load down good and necessary legislation with poison pills. Either they force the opposition to vote for stuff they don’t want, or when they go too far and force the opposition to vote against good and necessary legislation because it’s been too polluted with poison pills, they play “gotcha.”
• The idea of allowing Bush to select Supreme Court nominees really scares me. Actually, while I don’t think much of Bush as a president, I suspect his own personal convictions are more liberal than he lets on. But he is controlled by people who would make disastrous choices for the Supreme Court.
• John Kerry’s social values are much closer to my own than are his opponent’s. Although he doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve, I believe it is important to him, a guiding force in his life.
• I am deeply disturbed by the erosion of civil liberties under Bush.
• The Bush Administration hasn’t even tried to hide the extent to which they are beholden to rich business interests. They run the country as if it were their own personal candy store to plunder. The arrogance and the lack of accountability are unconscionable.
• John Kerry will do a better job of protecting the environment and planning for a sustainable future.
• I believe John Kerry will do a much better job of looking out for the interests of average Americans.
• I think Kerry is a very thoughtful, moral man. Unfortunately, conservatives mistake his capacity for nuance for lack of conviction. I would rather have someone thoughtful who knows the value of nuance than someone who is willing to follow his own bad ideas into the ground rather than admit his mistakes.
• The Republican Party seems to have abandoned the concept of fiscal responsibility, removing any incentive I had to vote for their candidates.

Outstanding idea.

If you find a Kerry site that offers the same opportunity, let us know.

Anonymous Scientist, if you really do respect Reagan, then please learn to spell his name. And remember that no president is really appreciated in his own time. They are mostly despised, often by their own party.

blov: Thanks for the nit-picking and the wisdom.

It is revisionist history to believe the Old Europe ever liked Reagan.

Question for my Bush supporting readers:

Do you guys know how to read?

I can't give you any reasons to vote for Kerry, but here's three good reasons to vote against Bush.

1. Tactical errors in Iraq.

Sure, the neocons deserve credit for scrapping the "stability at all costs" strategy in the Middle East. It wasn't working. But the tactical errors in Iraq - too few troops to secure the WMD infrastructure and prevent the predictable foreign insurgency - are baffling. I just can't see why we went in without 4th ID and 1st CD. We could have waited another month or two for them to get into the theater. Short term military and politcal costs? Significant, but acceptable. Long term military and political benefits? Helluva lot higher. Leaders take the long view. Bush got bullied by Rummy and invested way too much in the best-case scenario.

2. Failure to put the country on a war footing.

Outside of the men and women in uniform and their families, who is being asked to sacrifice anything for this war? Nobody. And no, longer lines at the airport are not a sacrifice, merely an inconvenience. "Border security" remains an oxymoron. The Congress and the Bush administration are spending money like Ted Kennedy at a strip club, running up the national debt, guaranteeing that future generations will be stuck with the bill, yet we still can't pay for needed security measures? Are you kidding me? But somehow we have plenty of money for a new prescription drug benefit? It makes me want to spit. I agree with the commenter above: we're not safe; we're not even safer. The failure to set spending priorities and use the veto to make Congress stick to them is inexcusable in war time.

3. Political pandering.

The Federal Marriage Amendment? Pandering to the social right at the expense of a historically marginalized minority. Steel tarriffs? Pandering to West Virginia and Pennsylvania at the expense of pretty much everyone else. The immigration proposal? Pandering to the Hispanic vote at the expense of low-income citizens. Was any of that worth it? Not even close.

Full disclosure: I'm still not voting for Kerry (unless something really big happens in the next 2 weeks). But since I will probably abstain from voting for Bush, who would otherwise get my vote, I am effectively supporting Kerry anyway.

Anonymous Scientist: WHERE Y'AT?! I'm keepin' it real in the 12th ward baby!

Owen: Uptown between Tchoup and Magazine -- near the Patio Bar. Great post! Good to hear a wise voice in this city.

THE COURTS
This will matter for generations to come. The lower federal courts are already heavily stocked with conservative appointees, and a 7-2 Renquist/Scalia/Thomas Supreme court is a truly frightening thought. Our rights to privacy aren't actually written in the text of the constitution....

THE ROOTS OF TERRORISM
Terrorism needs to be ripped out at the source, otherwise it's like cutting weeds without touching the roots. Kerry gets this. One of his major Senate accomplishments was uprooting the BCCI terrorist funding network -- a task which took patience, intelligence, dedication and modesty. Modesty because even though this rolled up more terrorist activity than any invasion could, it doesn't come with a flight suit photo-op at the end. We need more of this. A lot more.

HEALTH CARE
We are the only major industrialized nation that doesn't ensure our citizens have basic care. This is a major systemic flaw and it will continue to drag business down with it until it is fixed. Bush has proven that he will do nothing at best, and so far he's made things worse.

NATION BUILDING
Afghanistan was the place that America should have thrown all it's resources into, and the world would have joined us. We could have had the troops to secure all corners of the county and seal the borders. We could have rebuilt the infrastructure nationwide and created realistic opportunities for investment and economic development. We could have laid the educational and social foundations for democracy in areas outside the capital. The result would have been a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, right on the doorstep of Iran and Pakistan...

As it stands, we essentially abandoned Afghanistan after the invasion, and demanded that the world do the same in order to focus on Iraq. The infrastructure remains shattered, 50% of Afghan GDP is based on the opium poppy, the borders are porous, the tribal areas remain under warlord control, the remnants of the Taliban are poised to take electoral power, and we now face the realistic prospect of a "democratic" radical Islamic mega-state stretching from the border of Saudi Arabia to the border of Pakistan. This is the Bush Doctrine?

REAL THREATS
The next attack will not come from a pair of shoes on a passenger jet. And it was also not going to come from an Iraqi model airplane. My sister lives near the largest port in America. I live downwind. Thousands of un-inspected cargo containers are offloaded every hour, around the clock....

TAXES
If you're serious about tax cuts, cut payroll taxes. Four rounds of massive upper-end income tax breaks are nothing but a heartbreaking absurity. For what it matters, even Bush was against another round of tax cuts for the wealthy -- he was told to "stick to principles." I'd rather have a president who has his own principles, and who is principled enough to see when a policy needs changing.

DOUBLESPEAK
Heathy Forests blocks environmental review and makes logging easier. Clear Skies pulls back regulation on air polluters. No Child Left Behind threatens the funding of low-performing schools. If you believe in what you're doing, drop the cowardly Orwellian names and just say what you're doing.

MAKE NO MISTAKE
The first time Bush couldn't think of a single mistake he'd ever made, it could have just been that he felt on the spot. When he was asked again at the debates and the only thing he could think of was blaming his appointees... ? It's time for some buck stopping.

NO MISTAKE AT ALL
Even if you believe that an immediate invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary, it could have been done a lot better. And it's not going to get better if the people running the show aren't being honest with themselves and the world.

THEOLOGY
Bush seems to believe (and many of his supporters definitely believe) that he was chosen for his task and is being guided by a higher power. Bush also believes in the End Times and the Rapture. Bush is unconcerned that the original reasons we invaded the site of ancient Babylon have been proven false -- he feels there are greater, more important reasons to invade that particular area.... I'm growing increasingly concerned about the basis of our foreign policy decision making process.

HEALTH ISSUES?
Ten years ago, Bush was sharp, quick, and articulate -- a genuinely intimidating debate opponent. The comparison to his current demeanor and speaking ability is disturbing. Obviously this is speculation, but frightening speculation nevertheless.

PRESIDENT CHENEY
I really don't know what else to say about this....

ALL HAT, NO CATTLE
This one is personal: I was born in west Texas and grew up in the southwest. Bush was born in Connecticut, went to prep school in Massachusetts, went back to New Haven for college, went back to Massachusetts for grad school, all interspersed with family time in Maine and DC.

We won't be sending him "back" to Crawford.

I posted your request at Media Matters for America.

http://mediamatters.org/comments/latest/200407200002

Would that David should return the favor.

My sister is voting "Kedwards."

She is moderate and sensible and doesn't really care for Kerry, and she is far removed from moonbatism and has no Bush derangement syndrome, so I thought her reasons for her vote, which she freely shared with me, might be of some interest.

She is mainly concerned about the composition of the supreme court and is worried a second Bush term will mean increasing restrictions on a woman's "right to choose."

She also is upset by limitations on stem cell research funding. She is opposed to the restrictions.

She associates Republicans with religious fanaticism and flat-earth thinking.

Here are some quick thoughts on why I am supporting Kerry.

- Kerry will be more successful in the fight against global terrorism. His experience on the Foreign Relations Committee will provide an extremely valuable background on dealing with foreign governments and approaching the problems from different perspectives. He has been in the military, and has fought in combat. He knows what it means to be in war.

- Kerry will be better for the national economy. He recognizes the importance of the middle class in this country, and will work to see that there are more opportunities for average Americans to get ahead. He is committed to fiscal responsibility, and will begin to reduce the deficit.

- Kerry will improve and enforce the nation’s environmental laws. He understands that there is value in having clean and safe air and water. He will not let industrial polluters write or rewrite pollution control laws.

- Kerry will commit to reducing our dependence on oil by investing in alternative energy sources. He understands that the U.S. has the opportunity to be the leader in alternative energy sources, and with that thousands of high paying jobs will be created.

Mantis wrote -

For Kerry: [...]
Bush believes the best way to get at terrorists is to go after the states that harbor them. I see this as flawed because there are too many places for them to go instead, and we can't invade everywhere.[...]

Mantis cuts to the heart of the matter. This is THE best argument for a Kerry vote I've heard yet. While the majority of the posts thus far have been an combination of "against Bush" and "for Kerry," Mantis puts forth the first ideological difference. (i.e. - If you truly believe that the "Bush Doctrine" of going after nations that protect state sponsored terrorism is "flawed" then you'd have no choice but to vote Kerry.)

Mantis, this is twice in one week you have impressed me with your words. Again we must agree to disagree on about 2% of the issue.

Good post.

Lots of good points from Kerry supporters here, some of which I even agree with, and they are generally well-thought-out...but Bill's order to withhold criticism is like holding fresh meat six inches out of a lion's reach...aargh...

Interestingly, it seems far more of the Kedwards people here are voting "against Bush" rather than "for Kerry."

Mantis/Kieth,

Excellent observation regarding the Bush Doctrine. Example: Iran.

Festering Iraq conflict + failure to allocate sufficient resources for the war = Iran doesn't take the Bush Doctrine seriously. (Counter example: Libya. But Iran is the bigger threat. Advantage: Mantis/Kieth.) Hard to prevent the enemy from miscalculating if you don't give him a good reason not to...

Mantis/Keith/Owen: I think it's clear that Iran doesn't take Bush seriously. If they truly see Bush as a threat, they wouldn't be endorsing him. I believe the terrorists want Bush in office; Bush gives them fuel for their fire. This is yet another reason why I won't be voting for Bush.

Bill, might I suggest that you catalog the thoughtful responses as a post?

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA!

I think it's clear that Iran doesn't take Bush seriously. If they truly see Bush as a threat, they wouldn't be endorsing him.

Ok, just because I told my readers not to criticize doesn't mean that I won't - Anonymous Scientist - don't you read this blog?

No spreading misinformation on this site, thank you.

To honor my own no-criticism pledge, I won't bother to tell you what I think of the comment itself.

And don't respond to this comment, we're not starting a discussion.

DELETED FOR VIOLATING THE RULES

Thanks, Bill, for letting me enlighten your readers. They need it.

You just devalued your opinions by insulting my readers before listing your rationale.

It's sad that you're not even savvy enough to figure that out.

DELETED FOR VIOLATING THE RULES

By the way, you don't need a gun to kill a goose in Ohio. In my Columbus suburb, I can run one down on my commute to work at least once a week.

FormerTexan -

I didn't think I was being subtle. Please reread my post, then delete this one. It's a JOKE. I am an ardent Bush supporter.

I'm at work and didn't read your post closely past the first line. As it is, maybe you should re-read the instructions and updates on my post before you comment - they were very clear.

This post is not an opportunity for you to make fun of Kerry supporters or make a joke, by my strict instructions.

The sole reason I am voting for Bush is his stubborness in confronting terrorism. I disagree with him on everything else.

* IRAQ: Prior to invading Iraq, we were in a de facto state of war with the country. We had fighter planes in the north and in the south of the country that were being shot at on a daily basis. Clinton bombed its "WMD" facilities in 1998 and didn't change anything. It was still the same menace it was in 1991 at the end of Gulf War I.

There really was no finality to the the U.N. mission in Iraq because it wasn't getting anywhere. The government knew the following after 9/11: 1) We gave Iraq WMD to fight Iran in the 1980s, 2) Iraq had WMD after Gulf War I, 3) the U.N. tried to destroy all of Iraq's WMD and was kicked out before completing its mission, and 4) after going back prior to Gulf War II, the U.N. could not account for the WMD that it previously found.

What President, Democratic or Republican, would assume Iraq didn't have WMD given those circumstances (and the lack of 20/20 hindsight)? All the footage I've seen of Kerry pre-invasion indicated he believed Iraq had WMD. Kerry has been spineless on Iraq and I don't think he's someone who is stubborn enough to get us out of there. We don't have time to rally the world community as Kerry would attempt to do.

The quickest way out of Iraq is a democratic election. Bush is getting slaughtered on the exit strategy and an election there is an obvious way to get out of the entaglement we see now. I've seen the Chancellor of Germany and a French government representative say they would not send troops under any circumstances. Kerry's position on Iraq is predicated on hope that other countries will change their minds, but the facts seem to indicate we're stuck there no matter what, no matter who's elected.

LINE OF SUCCESSION: At worst, Bush can only be around for one more term. Dick Cheney wants to spend his Haliburton windfall and his heart condition makes him unelectable on a stand-alone basis.

The Dems will regain the Senate this time because of Alaska and shut down Bush on his religious agenda, irresponsible tax cuts, overturning Roe v. Wade and the appointment of far-right Supreme Court Justices. There's no way Bush can get a right-wing nut to pass muster in Congress due to checks and balances.

Dem in DC -

Why are you commenting under this thread?

I abhor Bush's domestic policies, but we need out of Iraq and I don't think Kerry can get us out of there. The only reason we're in Afghanistan right now is to hunt Bin Laden. We can get out of Iraq quickly with Bush, but I don't think we can with Kerry because he's not decisive and he's had too many positions for me to gamble my vote on which one it is.

Nevermind, it was rhetorical.

Bill:

OK. Mea Culpa -- I broke the rules. I knew I was, so I can't claim ignorance. Thanks for the forgiveness. Thank you. You obviously have an open heart and a generous personality. (But I'm using a temporary Hotmail address so it doesn't really matter.)

Why are you working so late?

Just to finish the goose thing -- in Texas, you don't take pride in knocking down a goose. You go out with dogs and a quality over/under, and you shoot doves. That takes talent. If Kerry wants a goose, I'll run one down for him tomorrow. I just have to circle a few golf courses.

Humbled,

Michael

Okay, I accept the challenge about opening my Blog to post by Pro Bush folks. I respect Bill very much for doing this. Becuase my Host does not support MT Blacklist for MT 3.x, you will have to register for typekey, but it is a painless process. I welcome the opportunity to work with Bill.

Is there a left-leaning blog that is willing to do what Bill is doing (i.e. let people post why they are voting for Bush or against Kerry)?

I just set up a post for it.
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/isou/archives/2004/10/opportunity_for.html

Self-deleted for violating the rules.

Well, I linked it David, but comment registration will severely dampen response.

Bill:

Admit it. I'm more amusing than the average person who violated your rules -- which I will now strictly obey. I did open up the "goose issue", which is a first on the blogoshpere.

Respectfully,

Michael

(Yes)

I can't really articulate my reasons for voting Kerry any more eloquently than my fellow posters already have - but I do want to add one observation:

We seem to come under a great deal of criticism (not necessarily here, but elsewhere) from those who feel our votes are somehow less valid, or less relevant, because they are perceived as votes "against" Bush, as opposed votes "for" Kerry. And, while it may be true that many of us are, in fact, primarily voting against Bush, I would argue that there is nothing wrong with that.

Everyone who votes is voting "against" something. Some people who believe they are voting "for" Bush may not see it this way, but they are also voting against something - be it big government, gay marriage, terrorism, abortion, an unfair tax code, or whatever their hot-button issues happen to be. I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong, I am simply saying I disagree with them. When you come right down to it, it's really all a matter of semantics. Ultimately, we vote for someone who we believe is going to protect us from something we're against.

So, yeah, I'm voting "against" Bush. My pro-Kerry vote is a vote against what I consider to be a very radical and very dangerous right-wing ideology. An ideology that has repeatedly demonstrated, through both word and deed, its intention to eliminate social programs that protect vulnerable citizens who cannot take care of themselves, conduct domestic policy in accordance with a radically dangerous far-right religious agenda, and set out a 'go-it-alone' foreign policy that will ultimately render our military overextended, our country weaker, and our citizens more feared, isolated, and reviled than ever before.

Hyperbole aside, I'm voting for Kerry because I believe he will provide this country with the greatest protection against a future that terrifies me.

Hope that makes sense (I have a bit of a baseball hangover tonight). Anyway, thanks very much for starting this thread. I think a lot of us have been desperate for a rational debate on the real issues facing us in this election, and it's a tremendous relief to know that even those who disagree with us seem to feel the same. I will look forward to visiting David's thread to learn more about your views.

- I know this will probably be struck as off topic but believe me I did everything but staple my fingers to the desk....

- This is the first time in all the months of blogging in this election I have seen anything even close to these thoughtful, well stated views in the Kerry/Bush debate. I can really respect people who set aside all the bickering and ad homonim personal attacks and my hats off to you for this unique approach....

- Brilliant idea Bill. I hope it spreads through the blogoshere like the flu...

1) Supreme Court appt.'s
2) Environment
3) Pro Choice
4) Outsourcing
5) Economy
6) [hope of]more jobs
7) [hope of] more allies in Iraq
8) Willing to admit mistakes
9) Healthcare/drug costs
10) Roll back tax cuts for the over $200k

Thats the short list, have many more.

1) Supreme Court appt.'s
2) Environment
3) Pro Choice
4) Outsourcing
5) Economy
6) [hope of]more jobs
7) [hope of] more allies in Iraq
8) Willing to admit mistakes
9) Healthcare/drug costs
10) Roll back tax cuts for the over $200k

Thats the short list, have many more.

Great job riding herd over this topic.

Whizbang tried a similar thread a week or so ago and it had more deleted commenters than undeleted, primarily because of wishy-washy instructions.

Hope you don't mind the compliment which I will extend also to your thoughtful Kerry commenters (er... without further comment).

Since I'm not voting for Kerry either, I put my 3 reasons to vote against him up over at David Anderson's blog.

Thanks, Bill, for the opening this thread and enforcing the rules. Good idea.

The two men vying for victory in the 2004 Presidential Election are, from the perspective of the American voter, hardly ideal.

The incumbent, President George W. Bush (formerly the Republican governor of Texas), has presided over a very difficult time in America's history. That should not be overlooked, but neither should the fact that he has done, on balance, a poor job. His domestic agenda has elevated the word "appalling" to new levels of celebrity, and his war management has done the same favor for the word "incompetent." Tax cuts for the rich were forced through Congress on the backs of the middle and working classes, the federal deficit soared in tandem with the national debt due to irresponsible spending binges, and religion became more closely wedded to the federal government which, as a result, embarked on a radical crusade of bigotry and idolatry against large groups of American minorities. That list barely scratches the surface. Our response to the attacks of 11 September 2001 has also been problematic. Mr. Bush was right to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, but he was wrong to abandon the country after the newsworthy fighting was done and the hard, but necessary, democracy building work was only beginning. Mr. Bush was right to define the "War on Terror" in the broadest possible terms- a war to destroy not just the individual terrorists, but also the craven, backwards sociopolitical order that produces them and allows their depraved ideology of hate to flourish- but he was wrong not to try harder to convince our traditional allies to define the "War on Terror" the same way. Mr. Bush was right to declare war against Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad, and aim to replace it with a decent, liberal, and consensual government that would serve as a model for the rest of the Middle East, but he was wrong to do so without preparing for the aftermath his invasion would create, and he has been wrong- continually- to sacrifice hard-to-come-by progress in Iraq at the alter of domestic politics.

The challenger, Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA), has a long and distinguished career of public service as a soldier, prosecutor, Lieutenant Governor and Senator, but has, aside from his nomination for the presidency by the Democratic party, little to show for it. His record in the Senate is dubious, particularly on issues of national security, and his failure to publicly reconcile some of his more questionable votes is troubling. For example, Mr. Kerry voted against funding the weapons systems that are currently being used- with great success- in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Bush's Vice President, Richard Cheney, criticized some of the same programs in his capacity as Secretary of Defense for Mr. Bush's father, but that was during the peace dividend period between the end of the Cold War and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Mr. Kerry's votes against those programs occurred in the early 1980's, when the arms race that broke the Soviet Union was in full gear, and following the 1993 attack against the World Trade Center. This shows a serious, and fundamental, flaw in his judgment. Mr. Kerry's judgment is also called into question by his insistence on defining the "War on Terror" in the narrowest possible terms: as a conflict against one man- Osama bin-Laden- and one group- al-Qaeda. Does he really think that global Islamic terrorism will end with bin-Laden's capture or with the elimination of al-Qaeda? Is he incapable of recognizing that Islamic terrorism is fueled by a cancer within the Muslim world- political, economic and social backwardness- that is the direct result of centuries of poor government and stifled innovation? If he believes the answer to either of these questions to be "yes," then he has shown he does not understand the reality of the world in which he lives. Additionally, Mr. Kerry has a difficult time making up his mind, and in these uncertain times the United States needs certain leadership. Mr. Kerry's positions on the first Gulf War- against it, for it, against leaving the Shiites to be slaughtered by Saddam, for leaving the Shiites to be slaughtered by Saddam- depended, quite literally, on how popular the War was any given week. Mr. Kerry has demonstrated a similar propensity in the last two years to let the political winds blow him wherever they please. He initially voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, then, faced with a Howard Dean insurgency during the Democratic primaries, he declared himself an "antiwar candidate" and voted against an $87 billion appropriations bill that would have, among other things, sent body armor to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of now, he has not adequately explained this discrepancy.

Every generation, it seems, has a challenge. Our parents' generation had the Cold War and the defeat of communism and the communist ideology. Their parents' generation had the defeat of fascism on the European continent and the destruction of Nazism. Our generation's calling is the defeat of jihadism and Islamic terrorism, combined with the sociopolitical liberalization of the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is somewhat peculiar that Mr. Bush has articulated this challenge more prominently than any other American. Liberals, after all, are the ones who espouse grand visions of what the future should look like, and conservatives are the ones who tell them that there is not enough money to pay for their ideas. But Mr. Bush has staked out new ground, and all of Islamofascism's opponents- regardless of any pre-9/11 political affiliations- will be forever grateful.

The Iraq War, however, was seriously tainted by Mr. Bush's decision to sell it to the public and the international community based on sketchy claims about illicit weapons programs. Those claims, as we all now know, were completely unfounded, and America's reputation has taken a vicious beating for it. Serious issues have also arisen regarding Mr. Bush's management of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. American troops are spread too thin, there does not appear to be much logic to the occupation strategy (though recent developments in Samarra may prove that point incorrect (and I certainly hope they do)), and, over and over again, decisions on how to proceed militarily have been made based on domestic political considerations. No serious supporter of the Iraq War, and Mayflower Hill includes itself in that category, ever thought winning the peace would be easy, but the current sorry state of our occupation was- in many senses- avoidable.

Mayflower Hill is less interested in who is President than it is in succeeding in our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right now, the dream of using the full spectrum of American power to end the institutionalized despotism plaguing the Middle East is lost somewhere between Abu Gharib and Falluja. If it is ever to be found again, and if we are to avoid creating, as one colleague put it, "a generation of realists," then we must succeed in Iraq. At the first presidential debate, Mr. Kerry stated, "We can't leave a failed Iraq," and then went on to directly criticize Mr. Bush for being unwilling to secure Falluja. At the debate's conclusion, Mr. Kerry declared, "I'm not talking about leaving [Iraq]. I'm talking about winning." The Senator is, of course, a political animal, and it is difficult to say whether he was being sincere. Without question, it is hard to imagine him wanting to spend four years of a hypothetical Kerry administration sorting out Bush's legacy. But, at that debate, he seemed to demonstrate that he grasps the necessity of succeeding in Iraq. He also seemed to demonstrate that he grasps what it would take to achieve that success. Mr. Bush did not demonstrate either of those things, and provided ample evidence to suggest that he, in fact, grasps neither of those things. Getting Iraq wrong would be devastating for the United States, it would be a huge coup for the followers of jihadism, and it would deal a monumental setback to liberalization in the Middle East, which is why, with reluctance, concern and skepticism, Mayflower Hill endorses Senator John F. Kerry for the office of President of the United States of America

Bill - How about a separate rebuttal thread with the same strict no whining, ranting, or making stuff up rules?

I guess I can add my voice to the chorus of "against Bush more than for Kerry" voters. I don't think Kerry is anywhere near as bad as the way he's portrayed, but I do consider him opportunistic and pandering, even for a politician. Most of what positive view I do have of him comes from the debates, not so much because I agreed with him on every point, but because the logic he used to support his points revealed, to me at least, that he has more on the ball than might otherwise seem.

Others such as Mantis have already summed up a lot of my views on specific policies such as the tax cuts, the deficit, Iraq, etc, so I'll mostly address what I don't like about Bush himself. The short answer from my perspective is that his worldview is essentially the opposite of mine on so many issues that I would have to be a true believer in the most apocalyptic terrorism scenarios I've heard put forth -not to mention subscribing to the conventional wisdom that Kerry would essentially “outsource” foreign policy decisions to the U.N.- in order to have that single issue trump all the rest.

As for my specific grievances with Bush the person:

1) He may not be as dumb as his verbal “difficulties” sometimes make him seem, but he clearly prefers a very reductionist way of looking at the world that sometimes drives me just about out of my mind.

2) I don't think his vision for the future, if he has one, involves anything but minor variations on the status quo, on a number of issues:

a) I don't believe for a second that he is even marginally serious about pursuing alternative energy sources; Halliburton or no Halliburton, he's an oil man through and through, so why in the world would he be interested in undermining the family business?

b) I certainly don't think he takes environmental problems seriously... and I'm not talking about saving every little endangered species of tree snake from the big bad logging companies. I'm talking about at least reducing the amount of toxic chemicals with which we saturate the air we breathe and the water we drink; if I recall correctly, Bush's idea of an environmental plan is to reduce the rate at which green house gas emissions increase from year to year.

3) It really does frighten me -and for any reasonably-minded Bush supporters who are actually interested in understanding my perspective and those of many others who think like me, this is really key- that Bush and many of his most ardent supporters actually appear to consider Kerry's "global test" position inherently bad. I really can't write anymore about why I feel this way without saying something that's sure to be interpreted as provocative, so just suffice it to say that this is as fundamental a point to me, in the broad scope of international relations, as gay marriage might be to some of your more conservative compatriots.

I could go on, but the thrust of my argument is that Bush seems to be far too oriented toward the right wing of the Republican Party. As I said at the beginning, I would have to believe in both the apocalyptic nature of the threat of terrorism and in the ability of Bush’s policies to reduce or eliminate that threat. Right now, I simply believe the military power equation is tilted too strongly in our favor for even the most desperate, savage fanatics to overcome. I might some day be brought around to the view that we can succeed in promoting democracy in the Middle East by force, but as it stands now, the possibility seems too farfetched to compensate for the extreme risks involved... although I can acknowledge that if you already believe we're facing an immediate threat of such overwhelming nature, the term "risk" takes on a different meaning.

It’s not that I don’t believe we’re facing a threat; it’s just that I believe the threat we are facing can be dealt with using measures far less extreme than invasion and occupation; and that, in fact, most conventional military operations at that level undertaken in the context of the war on terrorism will significantly increase the threat. Perception is as important as reality, and if we go charging in guns blazing without international support, then no matter how much flowery rhetoric about freedom and democracy we use, we will always be seen as invaders (and by the way, I’m not using “international support” as a code-word for “approval by the U.N.”; I mean it as something in the general range of “not being opposed by 90% of the world”).

Well, I went on anyway… mainly what I’m saying is that even though there’s a lot to dislike about Kerry, I think his approach to Life, the Universe, and Everything is orders of magnitude more compatible with my own than Bush’s, and if that’s not a rock-solid reason for me to vote “against” Bush, then I don’t know what is. Taken in combination with the “reality-based” policy issues articulated by others (mainly the economic ones, but also some social), it’s really not even close. I hope Kerry doesn’t turn out to be a disappointment, but that’s a far cry from the way I look forward to the possibility of four more years of Bush.

Bill, I just want to add to the sentiments of a few previous commenters: I think this was a great idea, especially in the manner you presented it. Thanks.

I attempted to offer my two-cents as to why I support President Bush over at David's site but seems Typekey will not allow me.

Strange, I do not have a problem when I enter other blogs through Typekey.

Let us know when we are able to voice our positions in the smae respectful manner that Bill has provided.

So I'm a moonbat? I wonder what that is. Please explain to me how your suggestion that your readers "bring a moonbat back from the brink" is all that different from the comments for which Former Texan was censored.

gave David's site a try, don't know why my typepad reg seems to go through, then it refuses to recognize me. try again later? thanks. I think this is so important... some of us are going to be unhappy about who was elected; but it is the role of elected officials to represent the overall constituency to the best of their abilities. if we make the effort to care about how others see things, we have a greater chance of working this out for one another. whether W or JFK, it's a democracy run by those who participate, like the people posting here.

This post is not an opportunity for you to make fun of Kerry supporters or make a joke, by my strict instructions.

See? Strict. Mmmm.

Nice post, BTW. Very enlightening.

I guess this thread is about played out, so I'll make one final comment on geese. Bill, if you think I'm exaggerating about how easy it is to run down a goose in Ohio, just drive north. Head for the far suburban fringes of Montgomery County in Maryland, where I also used to live (in the Olney School District). The goose population there is just like Ohio. You can personally run one down tomorrow and send it to Kerry. Apparently he failed to shoot one here in Ohio, so I'm sure he would appreciate the gesture.

Why support Bush? Because the foreign affairs and national security people around Kerry are former Clinton and Carter appointees or (like Sandy Berger) people from the let's put our heads in the sand and be ostriches variety.

People on this board who talk about Bush "passing the buck to future generations" are ignoring the basic tenets of the Kerry team, which is to pretend that we are not involved in a real war with a growing threat, to withdraw into some isolationist fantasy. Carter and Clinton were famous for ignoring Islamic and Arab terrorism and sweeping it under the rug. Carter swept Iran under the rug and set the stage for the disasters we are now experiencing. Clinton did nothing about Saddam and let the Saddamite cancer fester and grow, and worse, Clinton did nothing, or next to nothing, about Bin Laden. And both Clinton and Carter did everything possible to support "moderate" and "friendly" Arab and Islamic regimes (namely Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia) which are now the principal exporters of terrorism around the globe. These so-called friends of ours
support the mad mullahs who preach "death to America" every week in their government supported mosques! As for the Republican support for the Afghan liberation movement, which played into the hands of Bin Laden et al, remember that this was all started by Carter's psychopathic Russian hating adviser Zbignew Breznski, who even now says it was justified - and who now is advising the US government to seek an accomodation with the mad mullahs in Iran (also the Kerry plan !!!!)

What we have here are two schools of thought about how to deal with the Middle East, Islamic and Arab terrorism, and etc. Kerry is old school, State Department, more of the same, sweep it under the rug, and if US casulaties can be kept to a relatively low level, the US public will tolerate it. He still thinks, even after 9/11, that this a manageable crisis. Bush and his team recognize that the old direction of yielding to the Arab League, to the UN, and to failure to respond to attacks against US interests the murders of US civilans and personnel - is what got us dug into the current shithole. Reagan unfortunately helped dig us in by failing to respond to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut - an act planned in Tehran and Qom and Damascus. Reagan deserves praise for confronting the Soviet Union but his failure to nail the perpetrators of the Marine Barracks bombing emboldened Sunni and Shia extremists and made them believe the US is a paper tiger - Osama said as much himself!

The Bush team has made some mistakes in the occupation of Iraq, but the overall thrust and direction of the Bush team has been correct - zero tolerance for terrorism and states that support it. If you want to vote for the old school state department and CIA jerks who sat on their butts and did nothing while collecting fat paychecks, vote for Kerry-Sandy Berger-Phyllis Oakley etc. If you want to see the terrorist regimes confronted and dismemembered, vote for Bush.

If you want to pass the buck to the next generation , and pretend we are not really in a fight, vote for Kerry so he can slap some bandaids on the situation in the middle east and Islamic countries, meanwhile every extremist and their cousin will get into power in the Middle East. They start out as terrorists and then with a little arm-twisting and a few "benevolent" hand outs terrorist organizations there morph into "legitimate" political parties - as per the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt , as per the PLO and Hezbollah. No doubt Osama et al are looking for a seat at the UN, and Zbignew , Phyllis Oakley, and Koffi Annan probably can't wait to polish it for him with their tongues.

8835 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack