The whole “flip-flop” thing was a gimmick, and not the real reason to dislike Kerry. The real reason to dislike him was his old-left ideas.
I see this claim that Kerry is left-wing quite a lot, but who is this meant to be in comparasion to? Is there any reason to believe that he would have expanded the government to a greater extent than Bush has, or that he would have spent more money on socialist programs? From my limited knowledge of American politics, it looks like Bush has been one of the top 3 worst presidents in US history, and hes almost certainly been one of the biggest economic disasters youve had (large projected surplus -> record deficit + economy in tatters). Unless we managed to bring zombie FDR back from the dead, its hard to imagine how anyone could have done a worse job.
The economy certainly isn’t “in tatters”, but rather has remarkably continued to expand despite all the damage Bush and the rest continue to do. Let’s not forget that Bush has signed every bill sent to him by congress, so to say whether Kerry would have been worse you’d need to show that Kerry would have been able to influence congress to spend even more than they have under Bush. Seeing as how the Republicans have been actively expanding government (drug benefits, etc), I doubt Kerry’s presence would have made that much difference in terms of government expansion.
The big thing, I agree, is defense. That is where the president plays the crucial role, much more importantly than with respect to Congressional spending. Kerry would have been a serious blow to our security, in my opinion.
Kerry would have been a serious blow to our security, in my opinion.
And Bush hasn’t? He has been just as bad as Kerry if not worse. Kerry said he would like the US to pass a global test. Bush is implementing it. The bad thing about Bush is that liberals have succesfully painted him as a hawk when he can’t even kill an ant.
I see this claim that Kerry is left-wing quite a lot, but who is this meant to be in comparison to?
I didn’t mean it to be a comparison. Since you aren’t in the US, you probably don’t know this, but Kerry’s opponents made a big thing about him being a “flip-flopper”, suggesting he was weak and kept changing his mind on the issues. They sought to convince voters that Kerry was a “people-pleaser”. I doubt he is any more of a people-pleaser than is Bush. It is just that Kerry takes a stand on different issues.
As for how Kerry would have done as President; my guess is that he would not have been much worse than Bush. (The federal legislature is majority-Republican.) He might have delayed acting in the war on Islamists. In hindsight, however, this may not have been such a bad thing.
Hell, I would take McGovern over McCain. Atleast Govern didn’t attempt to destroy the First Amendment.
McCain is a fascist, there is no doubt about it, and from what I understand his censor-happy democrat ally Russ Feingold also plans to run. It’s Mussolini and his german protege, back from the dead. :worry:
So now that McCain has won another state, and Giuliani only did a bit better than the fringer Huckabee, we have to take very seriously the McCain possibility, at least for another week. What’s really annoying and depressing is that I’m wondering “Is he any better or worse than Billary or Lucky O’bama”.
So now that McCain has won another state, and Giuliani only did a bit better than the fringer Huckabee, we have to take very seriously the McCain possibility, at least for another week. What’s really annoying and depressing is that I’m wondering “Is he any better or worse than Billary or Lucky O’bama”.
I think it’s becoming clear that the Republican nominee will be McCain. He’s winning in most of the important “Super Tuesday” states and now Giuliani has endorsed him. The Dem ticket will likely be headed by Madame Clinton, as she won a media victory in Florida and will probably do better than her well-spoken socialist opponent on Feb. 5.
Ugggh… this is boiling down to a choice between an unstable ex-POW and a raving leftist bitch. Definitely not what I had hoped for…
Nomination isn’t secured yet, but looking increasingly likely for McCain. I can’t stand this empty suit, he’s garbage. I predict he expands the role of government tremendously; his campaign is built around the idea that he will be able to get public financing in a “worst-case” scenario, and I have no doubt he would accept as much public funding as possible. This whole liberal progressive primary process needs to be trashed in my estimation and we should return to party leaders nominating candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
Saw an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about McCain today. A few quotes of it:
Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the “Living Constitution” – in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.
I will be very upset if the Republicans go with McCain. My position is somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. If McCain gets the nomination I’ ll seriously think about becoming a ‘Hillary Girl.’
I will be very upset if the Republicans go with McCain. My position is somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. If McCain gets the nomination I’ ll seriously think about becoming a ‘Hillary Girl.’
Val
What’s the reasoning behind that choice? As bad as McCain is on so many issues, Hillary is worse.
Limbaugh and Coulter seem to think it would be better to have the Clintons screw up the country so that we can blame it on them, rather than have McCain screw it up so that the Republicans get the blame. Is that also your position?
I will be very upset if the Republicans go with McCain. My position is somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. If McCain gets the nomination I’ ll seriously think about becoming a ‘Hillary Girl.’
I see two important issues in this election: the war against Islamism and the creeping of further statism.
McCain could conceivably fight the war effectively. Certainly better than Hillary or Obama would even want to. But he’d let more statism in than either Democratic frontrunner. Not so much that he’s more statist than they are, but that the republicans in Congress woul allow him to do more and oppose him much less, as has happened with G.W. Bush. They’d oppose Hillary or Obama a lot more, as they opposed Clinton.
McCain could conceivably fight the war effectively. Certainly better than Hillary or Obama would even want to. But he’d let more statism in than either Democratic frontrunner. Not so much that he’s more statist than they are, but that the republicans in Congress woul allow him to do more and oppose him much less, as has happened with G.W. Bush. They’d oppose Hillary or Obama a lot more, as they opposed Clinton.
The Republicans have so abandoned their principles (and in the process lost their base of support) that they won’t control the House and may very well lose the ability to block legislation in the Senate after this next election. With either Hillary or Obama and both a Democrat controlled House and Senate, we are in for a massive dose of statism. If the Dems are going to control Congress, I’d prefer to see a Republican president so that there is someone at least pretending to stand in their way.
For those of you planning to vote for Hillary, the title of her op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal is: “My Plan for Shared Prosperity”.
The Republicans have so abandoned their principles (and in the process lost their base of support) that they won’t control the House and may very well lose the ability to block legislation in the Senate after this next election.
Very likely they won’t control the House, true. But the minority party can always resort to filibusters every time it wants. The Democrats blocked Bush very effectively that way prior to 2007.
But look at Bush’s drug prescription plan. The Republicans wouldn’t have supported such a thing from A democrat, but they did for their guy. The Democrats merely complained it wasn’t big enough.
If McCain picks Rudy as VP, well, I do draw the line at wishing people dead.