2004 Presidential Election

[nobody]

Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth

Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate)



Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

[piece-it pete]

On Guarde!!



Wait, that's French .

Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

How did "cowboy" ever get to be a slur, when it embodies all that's great about us? I'd wear that title like a badge of honor.

The last cowboy president brought down the USSR, a MUCH bigger threat overall than our current crop of haters.

Let's take a quick glance at who runs these int'l groups. Western Europe: couldn't even handle Bosnia. Heck, they can't even decide what to put on their money, so they go with abstract drawings! UN: appointed lackeys, incapable of action. Africa:? Think of any other geopolitical base, be it Russia, China, the Middle East. Just whos laws should we be obeying? Where is there ANY leadership?

The Senate, at 51 GOP/ 49 Dem is in practical gridlock, think fillibuster. You need 60 votes to do anything truly controversial. And we don't know what's going to happen to that balance come election time.

Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

What is Kerrys' record? What has he been proposing? Capital flows worldwide show money LEAVES high tax countries and goes to low tax. Think outsourcing on a much larger scale.

Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

A good reason that speaks directly to businessmens' hearts is lower taxes.

As far as morals go, ALL laws are moral. And gay marriage has been pushed and supported mightly by the Libs, they are forcing it on us, not the other way around.

Judging by the state issues passed we don't like it much.

The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth.

This is a tough one for me.

Not because of the environment. I've always been an avid primitive camper, from the backwoods of Missouri to Algonquin, as well as a lifelong skier. I love the wild.

And I believe we are damaging it badly. Have you seen the sattellite pics from over China and India? Gigantic soot clouds, covering both countries in their entirety!, from burning coal in more or less open fires. Why they are not talking about Kyoto.

My problem: who decides? If we could have a consensus from the Scientific community, that would help. But giving the power to an international group of bureaucrats, many of whom don't like us much (understatement), doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.

The Pres that allows others to screw us will be hated and despised.

Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Depends on HOW you ask. If you say "No abortion for any reason", you get a majority against. If you say "Parental notification", you get a majority for. There is extemists on both sides. Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - why?

The fact that the court decides shows me Jeffersons' fears were well founded. "The people" means "the legislature" not "the judges". Elect Dems, get activist judges who will tell you, with the FORCE of law, that they know what's best for you.

Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate).

Has anyone here looked up what this bruhaha is actually about? Politics, nothing more. No research has been slowed or stopped. It's a non-issue.

Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

As you know, I think it would be a change for the worse. Deceptive? Throwing ribbons, keeping the metals, balancing the budget by increasing it, supporting the war, not supporting it, cutting the military budgetwise and morale-wise. Those baby-killing animals.

The mess, you can thank the mullahs for. Thank God (can I still say that?) it's not over here.

Pete

PS And why won't he release his military records?

[FLZapped]

Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

Speaking about deceptive:

Federalist Patriot No. 04-42

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.

Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge. His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter's EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.

-Bruce