Peikoff For Kerry?

[BurgessLau]

I hope this thread continues. Here are my notes about what I have gained -- either directly or through inference -- while viewing and participating in this thread:

- I learned that I need to rethink my evaluation of conservatives, overall, as they exist in the U. S. A. today. My evaluation of them and of their presumed implicit philosophy and ideology may no longer be objective, because conservatives as a composite group have changed to some extent. My view has been based on the knowledge of them I gained through personal contact and reading 40 years ago in Texas and Louisiana (God is all, "kill the queers," police attacks terrorizing innocent blacks, religion-based prohibitions, and "my country right or wrong").

- I have come to see that some conservatives are "bedrock people," that is, the people of this country (and around the world) who actually get the daily work of the world done: the farming, the building of houses, the curing of disease, the teaching of arithmetic, and the policing of our streets. Their implicit philosophy is better than their explicit philosophy, which is the one they reach for as justification for objective values when they know of no other alternatives. They vote for "moderate" (e.g., pro-choice) or some conservative Republicans.

(I have also come to realize that probably an equal number of liberals are bedrock people too. I have seen plenty of the latter in the city where I live, a thoroughly liberal city. They work high-paying, honest jobs -- in medicine, software, advertising -- buy cheap houses in slums, remodel the houses, add lighting outdoors for safety, form neighborhood patrols to discourage crime, call the police to report crimes, work to improve schools for their children, advance the spread of technology, encourage prosperity, and encourage others to treat everyone with dignity. They vote for "sensible" liberal Democrats.)

- My long-held view of the overall direction of the culture (down, down, down) may no longer be correct. My observation now is that possibly the ripples of nihilism passing through the culture may have gone as far as they will (attenuating as they proceed). Two new trends are filling the vacuum: (1) a turn to religion (traditional religions as well as Environmentalism), which is mostly the conservative religious package-deal, including some implicitly objective elements; and (2) on a minute but growing scale, an Objectivist movement, subsociety, and subculture.

- Radical defenders of partly corrupt, partly good package-deals understandably spend most of their time defending the good parts of the package. That may be a polemical necessity, in a fast-moving thread on a narrow topic. An example is an Objectivist who defends a conservative politician who is better in a sine qua non area such as national defense than his leftist opponent, but who still advocates some horribly corrupt positions on his own or tolerates them among his conservative supporters -- such as drug prohibition and attacks on the right of terminally ill patients to request a physician's assistance for suicide. However, I have also concluded that anyone who is radical and defends a mixed bag, should include a reminder statement: "My support of Mr. X, relative to his opponent, is not in any way an endorsement of the awful positions he holds on A, B, and C issues." Making this supposed concession does not weaken one's argument in favor of Mr. X, but actually strengthens it by offering evidence of objectivity. Otherwise, readers may rightly wonder about evasion, if they don't know him personally.

- I have learned, from thinking about this thread, that there is a trichotomy in the foundations of the process of evaluation: (1) philosophical pessimism (malevolent universe premise); (2) philosophical optimism (Pollyanna universe premise); and (3) objectivity, that is, looking at the world as it is -- in general and in particular -- and drawing conclusions logically from the facts.

What I have gained is far more important than a particular decision for one candidate in one election. I am gaining a little better understanding of the world in which I live and possibly of myself.

[MisterSwig]

From the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul15.html

Kerry Keeps His Faith in Reserve

Candidate Usually Talks About Religion Before Black Audiences Only

By Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A01

John F. Kerry, a lifelong Roman Catholic, carries in his briefcase an unmarked manila folder stuffed full of religion articles, scriptures, personal reflections -- and a sermon the Democrat has been fine-tuning since the early 1980s ...

 

The speech, based in part on James's New Testament teachings on Christian social responsibility of nearly 2,000 years ago, was revealing, overtly religious in tone -- and one of the rare times Kerry has expounded at any length about his views on faith during this campaign.

Outside of black churches or meetings with African Americans such as those at the NAACP convention yesterday, Kerry has been largely silent about the personal Catholicism that once inspired a flirtation with the priesthood and the Christian beliefs friends and family say guide his life and political thinking.

This article shows how infrequently Kerry relies on religion in politics. He keeps his religion "in reserve." While Bush's religion is on his sleeve and all over his administration's policies.

If you, by some miracle, can't find an online article showing how Bush's religion runs his life and presidency, I suggest you pick up a book called God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life by Paul Kengor. This is not an attack book. It is a complimentary biography intended to highlight the fact that our President is a seriously devoted "recommited Christian" (the new catch-word for born-again Christian) who studies the Bible and prays every day and is guided by the hand of God.

By the above article's own admission Kerry's reliance on religion and faith in politics is "rare." We absolutely cannot say the same thing for Bush, who practically lives and campaigns in the churches.

[BurgessLau]

Yeah, here are some good quotes from those articles i posted on how this could be done .

...

-How would the Mafia do an occupation?

Why are you discussing military strategy at length in a thread devoted to a discussion of Dr. Peikoff's recommendation, based on his methodology (which has also been a subject of discussion), to vote for Senator Kerry rather than President Bush?

[Al Kufr]

Why are you discussing military strategy at length in a thread devoted to a discussion of Dr. Peikoff's recommendation, based on his methodology (which has also been a subject of discussion), to vote for Senator Kerry rather than President Bush?

Responce to Jake Wakeland

[MisterSwig]

We don't want to take over the churches and we don't have to.  We want to take over the UNIVERSITIES.  The people who can block the way are sitting on the committees deciding whether an Objectivist scholar gets tenure -- and they are SECULAR.  (Objectivist academics have had an easier time at religious schools like Ashland, Seton Hall, and Anderson College.)

Uh, did you consciously leave out our biggest successes, like Duke, Austin, and Pittsburgh? Are these religious schools? (Not sure about Duke.) Can you please name an Objectivist who is teaching in the field of philosophy at a religious school? Who is at Seton Hall and Anderson College?

The point is that the Objectivist presence in academia is still very very small. We have only made a dent in the system, and are still encountering resistance. It is hard to be an openly Objectivist academician or teacher at a university. Only a handful of schools have embraced us. Yet, we are progressing and making big splashes. So, obviously, our intellectuals are our best hope.

Meanwhile, however, the religious folk, at the grass-roots level, are tired of the universities, just like we are, and they are pulling their children out, fleeing into religious education, or trying to take over the public universities themselves.

We need to recognize this fact and start addressing the issue. Otherwise, we may not win the fight for the education of children, which is what putting people into academia is really all about.

[MisterSwig]

[1] If you are old-enough to have lived through the 1960s and 1970s, then you must have lived on some other planet. If you are too young to have experienced it directly, then you know little of history. I'll take the young people of today's generation over any from the 60s and 70s.

[2] Look, MisterSwig, don't bother responding for my sake ...

[3] ... I am done.

1. Three fallacious and intellectually empty retorts in a row. Nice job! I guess we should all simply accept your high-on-the-mountain proclamation that the '60s and '70s were a much more morally depraved era, and that young people of today are better.

2. I don't respond for your sake. I respond for my sake.

3. Happy trails.

[Betsy]

By the above article's own admission Kerry's reliance on religion and faith in politics is "rare." We absolutely cannot say the same thing for Bush, who practically lives and campaigns in the churches.

Not true.

If you check, you will find that Bush rarely campaigns in churches, while Presidernt Clinton did so constantly (click here) and Bush's 2000 opponent Gore spoke so often in churches that it sparked an Americans United for Separation of Church and State complaint. (click here).

[MisterSwig]

By-the-bye, MisterSwig, we are not losing the war.  You sound just like the Leftist hand-wringers.  The only words you haven't yet used are "quagmire" and "exit strategy".  You could profit from a study of the history of warfare and of the politics of war.

If this is the premise from which you are launching your attacks against me, then I will have to give up trying to convince you. I have already spent time writing several posts on why we are losing the war. If they failed to convince you, then I can only point you to the writings of smarter Objectivists than me, like Dr. Yaron Brook, who has given several speeches on the subject and completely disagrees with you.

Perhaps he can convince you. I hope you would see the reason in his argument.

I will not take the time to respond to you further, except to say that Israel alone may have taken care of militant Islam much faster than us, had we, as the big guy on the block, not interfered with their foreign policy. But that is up for debate--a debate I will not have with you.

[MisterSwig]

If you check, you will find that Bush rarely campaigns in churches ...

You have got to be kidding me, Betsy.

Check this out:

Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign

[Betsy]

Uh, did you consciously leave out our biggest successes, like Duke, Austin, and Pittsburgh? Are these religious schools? (Not sure about Duke.)

Duke was founded by Methodists and Quakers and the Divinity School of Duke University is a graduate theological seminary recognized and supported by the United Methodist Church.

Tara Smith had the hardest time of any Objectivist intellectual I know getting tenure at the University of Texas at Austin, but now that she's in, she is easing the way for many other Objectivist intellectuals.

The University of Pittsburgh does not have any tenured Objectivists on the faculty, but they do have an Anthem Fellowship thanks to the hard work of John McCaskey.

Can you please name an Objectivist who is teaching in the field of philosophy at a religious school? Who is at Seton Hall and Anderson College?

Dr. Robert Mayhew is teaching philosophy (tenured) at Seton Hall, the oldest Catholic diocesan university in the United States.

Dr. Jena Trammell, author of one of the essays Mayhew's volume on We the Living, is an Associate Professor (tenured) of English at (Christian) Anderson College where she makes The Fountainhead an important -- and influential -- part of the curriculum. (click here)

In addition, Dr. Darryl Wright is a tenured at Harvey Mudd College, one of the Claremont Colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Dr. Dina Schein Garmong is currently teaching philosophy and is on tenure track at Auburn University "established by Alabama Methodists to foster Christian education."

[Betsy]

If you check, you will find that Bush rarely campaigns in churches ...

You have got to be kidding me, Betsy.

Check this out:

Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign

That is Bush's campaign committee and the Democrats do that too.

When it comes to actual appearances by a President or presidential candidate, Clinton and Gore actually appeared in churches -- and gave some really hellfire and brimstone sermons -- many times more than Bush ever has.

[oldsalt]

MisterSwig:

It is very difficult to debate with you because you make such broad, sweeping statements.

You say that we have lost the war. Do you mean that we have lost the global war against the Islamists? We have only fought 2 military battles so far: the battle of Afghanistan and battle of Iraq. We may make tactical errors and we may make strategic errors, but neither of those mean that we have lost the war; indeed, we have just begun to fight. I'm not even sure that we are yet at the end of the beginning, to paraphrase Churchill.

Instead of hand-wringing, I would much rather hear positive suggestions as to how we change what we are doing so that we may enjoy ultimate success in as short a time as possible, with as little loss of life and treasure as we can manage. When I hear people say that we have lost the war, I see that the cost of winning rise exponentially.

Philosophy can answer many questions, and is indespensible as the foundation of all knowledge. But even Miss Rand was careful not to draw inferences beyond what she knew, especially on questions that were not philosophical. What I've been hearing and reading from many Objectivist scholars are pronouncements concerning areas of specialized science, such as the science of warfare, international law, and geo-politics. While philosophy may give one the proper foundation upon which to build a particular science, it does not give one the knowledge and expertise to expound on any particular science. Philosophy may recognize where a fundamental error is being made, but it has nothing to say about what exactly must be done once the fundamental error is corrected. Any thought beyond the philosophical, in any area beyond philosophy, requires the unique knowledge of the facts of reality which only the expert possesses. When someone who does not possess this unique knowledge attempts to draw inferences, he can do so only by rationalization -- he is not reasoning from the facts. It is here that the old cliché, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", kicks in.

One thing I do know, with an absolute certainty born of many years of studying history and my own personal experience, is that we will certainly lose this war if the American people do not act with more maturity and serious thoughtfulness than they are showing right now.

Do I agree with all that we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? No. But I do see the overall strategic thinking behind what we are doing. The strategy is fundamentally sound, but very flawed in its implementation. We are fighting (with finite resources) a global war, with the epicenter in the Middle East (specifically Iran). Militarily, we now have both Iran and Syria, with their military forces, physically isolated. While other countries in the area may harbor terrorists and all the rest, they do not constitute the kind of military threat that Iran and Syria do (even Saudi Arabia's army isn't a threat to us). That is pure military strategy. We are attempting get the countries we have neutralized militarily off our back as much as possible (by turning them back to the natives) so that we may address the military targets we have isolated. We now have Iran in our sights, but are not yet in either a military or political position to attack. (How long would Bush last politically if he attacked Iran at this time? This is an important question that goes beyond Mr. Bush's personal political career. Kerry would bring with him an entirely different administration whose fundamental viewpoint is that we are not at war.) This doesn't mean that we don't have plans on the table for the next battle. Right now we are buying time in Iran, our main target. We have 130,000 troops sitting on their doorstep, but we are not yet ready to take on a third country. Syria, and its puppet Lebanon, is isolated, sitting with US forces on one boarder, and Israel on another.

The above is merely the briefest beginnings of a sketch to indicate the bigger picture, but it gives an indication of the kinds of things you ought to be considering when you talk about the war or the election.

You called Stephen's conclusions about the culture of the 60's and 70's "fallacious and intellectually empty retorts." I will tell you that I concur with his conclusions. Those were the days of my young adulthood. I was in college (in Miami, FL) from 1965-69. Throughout that time, I worked in hospitals and clinics. Both at school and at work I was faced with the effects of the degeneracy Stephen talks about. Classes were shut down because of demonstrations, or were interrupted and made difficult because half the students were drugged out. In the ER of Jackson Memorial Hospital, I dealt with drug overdoses, severe allergic reactions in those who, like year old babies, put into their mouths whatever was handed to them. I dealt with the shootings, stabbings, beatings, etc. that occurred daily among the generation of brotherhood and love. I also dealt with the daily run of suicide attempts. That was just the taste of that culture in my little corner of the world. Elsewhere our cities were burning from riots and the bombs of a multitude of groups of "political activists." The National Guard lined our city streets and occupied our campuses. This country was as close to complete anarchy as we have ever been in our history. Add to this, first Mr. Johnson's "Great Society", which promptly trashed our economy as we spent our GNP on welfare and war, then Mr. Nixon's wage-price freeze, and OPEC's oil embargo. Do you begin to get the picture?

To compare that time with now and conclude that we are worse off now is to engage in fallacious rationalization and empty intellectualism. You do so at your peril. It is here where the facts of what has gone before, an undertanding of how the consequences are playing out and in what way such are effecting policy today, is crucial. Reread Mr. Wakeland's post about the "Vietnam Syndrome." The way you are approaching this discussion represents a small instance of that syndrome. I implore you to think about these things if your purpose is to determine what actions to take based on ALL the facts.

I don't care to go into the snide tone and open disrespect in some of your posts except to say this: I think you are sincere in your belief, and I appreciate the impassioned argument you gave for fighting the religious Right in one particular post, but MisterSwig, you make it hard to even want to address your posts when they drip with sarcasm. You invite the same in any rebuttal.

[BurgessLau]

... Any thought beyond the philosophical, in any area beyond philosophy, requires the unique knowledge of the facts of reality which only the expert possesses.  When someone who does not possess this unique knowledge attempts to draw inferences, he can do so only by rationalization -- he is not reasoning from the facts. ...

(Emphasis added.)

Is there some confusion of terms here?

RATIONALIZATION "is a coverup, a process of providing one's emotions with a false identity, of giving them spurious explanations and justifications -- in order to hide one's motives, not just from others, but primarily from oneself .... Rationalization is a process not of perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions." (From "Rationalization," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 406.)

This is a psychological vice -- an immoral act.

RATIONALISM is the claim "that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts ...." ("Rationalism vs. Empiricism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 405.)

This is a fundamental epistemological error.

I would suggest then that "rationalism" is the appropriate term in the quoted usage.

[ex_banana-eater]

proclamation that the '60s and '70s were a much more morally depraved era, and that young people of today are better.

I remember discussing a study in class a few months ago, which compared the present rates of teen pregnancy and sex, illegal drug use, and teen violence with a year in the early 70's. They all dropped dramatically if I remember, drug use in the range of 40% or something. I spent alot of time looking for the study just now so I could cite it, but I can't find it.

At the very peak of teenage illicit drug use in the past few years (1995), admittance of marijuana use was 39%. 1979 it was 54%. Use has significantly dropped since 1995 too. Infact teen drug use has dropped 11% in the past two years alone.

[stephen_speicher]

You called Stephen's conclusions about the culture of the 60's and 70's "fallacious and intellectually empty retorts."  I will tell you that I concur with his conclusions. Those were the days of my young adulthood.  I was in college (in Miami, FL) from 1965-69.  Throughout that time, I worked in hospitals and clinics.  Both at school and at work I was faced with the effects of the degeneracy Stephen talks about.  Classes were shut down because of demonstrations, or were interrupted and made difficult because half the students were drugged out.  In the ER of Jackson Memorial Hospital, I dealt with drug overdoses, severe allergic reactions in those who, like year old babies, put into their mouths whatever was handed to them.  I dealt with the shootings, stabbings, beatings, etc. that occurred daily among the generation of brotherhood and love.  I also dealt with the daily run of suicide attempts.  That was just the taste of that culture in my little corner of the world.  Elsewhere our cities were burning from riots and the bombs of a multitude of groups of "political activists."  The National Guard lined our city streets and occupied our campuses.  This country was as close to complete anarchy as we have ever been in our history.  Add to this, first Mr. Johnson's "Great Society", which promptly trashed our economy as we spent our GNP on welfare and war, then Mr. Nixon's wage-price freeze, and OPEC's oil embargo.  Do you begin to get the picture?

So much of the "opposition" here seem unaware of historical fact. They complain that Objectivism is only making a little headway into academia yet they have no idea how the leftist students in earlier decades destroyed Objectivist flyers and pamphlets and completely disrupted any attempt at campus gatherings. University campuses and classrooms were literally taken over by students and education for the seriously interested virtually stopped. And this was just a prelude to the those wonderful gas lines that we waited on for three hours just to fill up our car tanks. And, even then, only on the odd or even days that corresponded to our license plates! Imagine an 18% interest rate when you would like to buy a house. Or a 12% inflation rate when you couldn't afford to buy that house to hedge against the inflation. Or the over 90% income tax, later so graciously reduced to 70%!

These are just a few highlights. Forget about foreign affairs! But, what I find so distressing about the opposition here are the grandiose pronouncements made in utter ignorance of fact. It is not the ignorance per se, but rather that so few actually research out the facts before they make their judgments. Such lack of scholarship does not bode well for the intellectual process.

Anyway, thank you once again, Janet, for your continued attempt to set the record straight on many of these issues. You have more fortitude than me in regard to this subject. I tend to fight other battles, and rarely step into these political ones. What you have seen here is one of the reasons why.

[NIJamesHughes]

So much of the "opposition" here seem unaware of historical fact. They complain that Objectivism is only making a little headway into academia yet they have no idea how the leftist students in earlier decades destroyed Objectivist flyers and pamphlets and completely disrupted any attempt at campus gatherings. University campuses and classrooms were literally taken over by students and education for the seriously interested virtually stopped. And this was just a prelude to the those wonderful gas lines that we waited on for three hours just to fill up our car tanks. And, even then, only on the odd or even days that corresponded to our license plates! Imagine an 18% interest rate when you would like to buy a house. Or a 12% inflation rate when you couldn't afford to buy that house to hedge against the inflation. Or the over 90% income tax, later so graciously reduced to 70%!

These are just a few highlights. Forget about foreign affairs! But, what I find so distressing about the opposition here are the grandiose pronouncements made in utter ignorance of fact. It is not the ignorance per se, but rather that so few actually research out the facts before they make their judgments. Such lack of scholarship does not bode well for the intellectual process.

Anyway, thank you once again, Janet, for your continued attempt to set the record straight on many of these issues. You have more fortitude than me in regard to this subject. I tend to fight other battles, and rarely step into these political ones. What you have seen here is one of the reasons why.

70 and 90% income tax? Is that a typo?

[knuckles]

70 and 90% income tax? Is that a typo?

Remember the Beatles song:

"There's one for you, nineteen for me...

...I'm the taxman."

[Capitalism Forever]

A question to the moderators: Are "Admins" immune from "warnings" or are other moderators authorized to give them?

We are not authorized to warn Admins.

[stephen_speicher]

70 and 90% income tax? Is that a typo?

Unfortunately, not. The top rate was 94% in the early 1960s, until the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut brought it down to 70%. It wasn't until the 1980s that Reagan brought the rate down to 28%.

[stephen_speicher]

We are not authorized to warn Admins.

That's a shame.

[Tom Rexton]

Take any general US History course, and you'll discover easily from the typical textbook that the distingushing features of the 60's and 70's were violence, outrage, rebellion, dramatic social changes, and hedonistic nihilism. It is also characterised by the highest crime rates and drug-use rates ever in the United States (the highest were in the mid-70's) which has since declined dramatically. That's why historians often called it "the Stormy 60's" and "the stale-mated 70's" or "America's suicidal attempt" and "the collectivist 70's".

Just read one of Ayn Rand's essays concerning the culture climate of the 60's and 70's.

--edit--

Just to add some substance, go to Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice for some facts on the decline in crime rates since the 1970's.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

[MisterSwig]

[1] MisterSwig:

You say that we have lost the war. Do you mean that we have lost the global war against the Islamists?

[2] You called Stephen's conclusions about the culture of the 60's and 70's "fallacious and intellectually empty retorts."  I will tell you that I concur with his conclusions.

1. You are incredible, Oldsalt. Are you purposefully lying about my position on the war? I never said that we have "lost the war." We are losing the war. LOSING!!! There is still time to turn things around.

I am rude to you because you fail to afford me the basic courtesy of paying adequate attention to what I convey and not misrepresenting my most clearly obvious and foundational position.

2. Jesus! I did not call his "conclusions" that. That is what I called three sentences that he wrote in support of his conclusion. Again, are you being honest here?

There is disagreement on the state of today's culture versus during the '60s and '70s. That's fine. I will do my best to argue the facts in a later post. But in the meantime can you please refrain from lying to people about my positions?

I don't appreciate it. And I WILL respond in kind when you argue like a jerk. I especially did not appreciate the blatant mischaracterization of my view on the war.

[oldsalt]

I do you the courtesy of attempting to argue your points as I understand them and you call me a liar and a jerk. MisterSwig, do not address any further posts my way because I will no longer read anything you have to say.

You are beneath comtempt.

Edited August 30, 2004 by oldsalt

[MisterSwig]

Unfortunately, not. The top rate was 94% in the early 1960s, until the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut brought it down to 70%. It wasn't until the 1980s that Reagan brought the rate down to 28%.

I plan to address the state of today's culture versus during the '60s and '70s more broadly when I have time to do some more research.

But for now I'll simply point out that focusing on the top income tax rate (and inflation figures) supports a very narrow view of the economic climate of any period.

Consider this: In early 1990 the federal excise tax on gasoline was 9 cents per gallon. By late 1993 it had doubled to 18.4 cents. I guess the government was desperate for some money. And from history they knew they couldn't raise income tax rates on the wealthy anymore, because that resulted in less total revenue. It appears that the government is now trying a different tactic, though not a new one, to bleed us dry.

There are also rising "sin taxes" on gambling, cigarettes, and alcohol. There's talk of taxing candy, even. And don't forget the lovely idea of a federal sales tax that some people seem to think is a wonderful idea.

http://www.artba.org/economics_research/re...tax_history.htm

For anyone interested, the link below provides a very brief historical summary of top tax rates in the 1960s and 1980s.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm

Quote:

The 1960s

President Kennedy proposed a series of tax rate reductions in 1963 that resulted in legislation the following year dropping the top rate from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965.

The Kennedy tax cuts helped trigger the longest economic expansion in America's history. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 percent. On a yearly basis, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent.

Tax revenues grew strongly, rising by 62 percent between 1961 and 1968. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third ...

The 1980s

President Reagan presided over two major pieces of tax legislation which together reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988.

[BurgessLau]

I have a question for Bush supporters and Kerry supporters:

What is probably the best and worst you expect to come from your chosen candidate, given the political circumstances (e.g., continuation of a probably slim Republican majority in Congress)?

I am asking this to get a better understanding of the nature of your candidate -- and the people who stand behind him.