| Subject: substance over style |
Author:
pjk
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/30/04 11:57:44pm
Why most Americans will be better off with Kerry and the Democrats in the Whitehouse ( a partial, quick and dirty summary of why pjk prefers Kerry over Bush).
or
…5 points that have to do with issues and substance instead of haircuts, snark on spouses, regional & professional stereotypes, or micheal moore…
1) War on Terror. Kerry is as hawkish or more than Bush & Co.. He’s smarter and his team will not be encumbered by head-in-the-cloud neocon dreaming & denail. There may not be noticeable differences on the general thrust of our foreign policy, but execution and planning make all the difference in regards to how successful America will be in achieving its goals. I think Kerry is right when he says Bush took his eye off the ball… for me, one of the big differences between the two candidates is that Kerry wants to focus on non-state sponsored terrorists rather than state-sponsored terrorism. In other words, on al qaida and groups like them rather than by states who wouldn’t dare risk leaving a trail that leads America to their doorstep. Kerry will shift the War on Terror to the War on Terrorists – pa may call it semantics, but to me it symbolizes what is right and practical about Kerry and what is wrong and delusional about “God told me to do it” Bush. He can’t seem to face the facts or reality, assuming he knows what they are. A vote for Kerry is a vote for a smarter more effective approach to combating terrorists. A vote for Bush is more of the same bumbling and insistence on ideology over results (see Iraq and Bush “planning” for new democracy there).
2) Science: America needs a president who believes in science – from getting behind stem cell research to getting back to the table on global warming, to taking air and water regulations seriously, etc. Dozens of nobel scientists have taken issue with Bush and his admin, and hundreds if not thousands more have criticized the marked politicization of science as it relates to public policy that is characteristic of his team. If pa can find working and respected scientists (not just a couple of ringers) for Bush I’ll be impressed. Here’s an exerpt from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“””Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:
*
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
*
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
*
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
*
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
*
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.”””
The pattern Bush and the Republicans have established is that any scientific evidence or conclusions that run counter to their agenda is labeled “junk science.” A vote for Bush is a vote against science informing public policy at the federal level. A vote for Kerry is a vote for keeping science involved in the decision making process for ourselves and our children.
Here’s another article that helps to remind the voy of Bush’s approach to science.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.thompson.html
3) Health Care: If the Republicans (who’ll control the house and senate) agree to pass legislation initiated by Kerry and the Dems, it will certainly not be some socialized revamping of the HC system. To speak to krz & geo – I just don’t see democrats forcing families like your own into poverty through new legislation that removes coverage for dz. The coverage that exists right now is most likely the product of democratic leadership, not republican. I don’t think Bush has much interest or credibility when it comes to health care reform or coverage innovation – certainly the last 4 years aren’t all that impressive unless you count the drug-benefit card (No, we want to pay the highest prices we can Mr. Pharmaceutical!) See wapo op/ed for quick look:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23028-2004Oct10.html
A vote for Kerry is a vote for someone who is approaching health care with ideas that begin to address the enormous problems facing Americans and their children. A vote for Bush is a vote for puny thoughts that do little to make much of a difference in people’s lives.
4) The Economy: To the degree that the president can influence the economy, I believe the democrats do a slightly better job if we look at the last 24 years as any example. 12 years with republicans in tandem with democrats – massive debt. 8 years with democrats in tandem with republicans – debt reduction. 4 years with republicans in tandem with republicans – historic debts projected to be in the trillions in less than 10 years. I don’t think we can expect any rabbits from Kerry and the Dems (in tandem with republicans), but getting a handle on the spending is a more likely scenario with Kerry in the whitehouse (with rapid opposition from God’s Own Party), than with Bush.
What I know about the behemoth that is the American and world economies could fit in a sippy cup, but for me, a vote for Kerry is a vote for a better mix of tax “relief” & tax “restoration,” (can’t call it a hike if rates would return to under or close to previous levels:-)).
5) Supreme Court/Federal Bench – I think a moderate court is better for the country than one that is tilted to the extreme right as exemplified by Scalia and Thomas. If Bush suceeds in getting extreme right wingers on the court, the country may be dangerously divided for many years to come. The SCOTUS already took a huge hit when it appointed Bush to the Whitehouse – further politicization may further diminish its authority for otherwise moderate citizens. With the possibility of 3 or 4 justices retiring in the next 4-6 years, it is of paramount importance to the nation that we have a president who won’t overly politicize the court. The republicans will never let a real lefty get on the bench, but the democrats may very well bend over for a rightwinger.
May the best man win on Tuesday (or by the time the electors get together in December!)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 