Asymmetrical Information

Are we refighting the 2000 election or did you mean "John Kerry" instead of "Al Gore"?

The degree to which people believe it is extremely important whether the top marginal income tax rate is at 39% instead of 35%, or vice-versa, is too silly for words. Bush has been just about exactly what I expected, in regards to domestic issues; Nixonian in terms of spending, while appealing to the Republican base with tax cuts. The only reason I favored Bush to Gore in 2000 was because Gore struck me as the most psychologically insecure Presidential candidate since Nixon, and giving great power to psychologically insecure people is usually a bad idea.

In terms of foreign policy, I too fear that Bush is not committed to the radical change which is required in the Islamic world in general, and the Persian Gulf in particular. Unfortunately, I see no indication that Kerry is either, and the lip service he gives to the United Nations concerns me. It is unforunately ironic to hear people who complain about the ineptitude and corruption of the Bush Administration speak of the essential nature of an institution that is, by an order of magnitude, more corrupt and inept. Nope, there really isn't much to choose here, at least for me.

He's so cute, he would make a great senator!
He also dresses well, for a dog.
Air Amerika does stink. I don't know how they are going to attract advertisers while bashing the free market economy. They played some stupid spoof commercial about the family farm which made no sense and bashed corporations and Mexicans. Libs bashing Mexicans? Hmmm...I think you will hear a lot of hate spewing from those people.
They had Johnny Cougar on and asked him why he helped with the campaigns of three different Democratic candidates and Johnny said something like,
"I think it's important to work within the whole process." Sounds like only half of the process Mr. Cougar/Cougar Mellencamp/Mellencamp.
You're right about the courts btW.

Please forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered before:

For someone who leans libertarian, wouldn't there be a clear choice of who to vote for: the Libertarian one?

If you're stuck on the "issues" type factors, you might want to look at the more intangible ones; they seem to matter more when unforseen circumstances come out of nowhere. Is the person calm in a crisis? Are they curious about information? How do they process information, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of that approach? Can he inspire loyalty, respect, and level-headedness? Do you like his choice in advisers? Does he make good use of them? Stuff like that.

kate, it might be if one was suffciently enamored with the Libertarian platform, and believed that such a vote would be useful in advancing one's preferred order. I can't speak for our host, but I think a good percentage of the Libertarian Party is populated by unrealistically idealistic loons, who actually do much to harm the prospect of advancing the notion of a smaller, less intrusive, state among the rest of the population.

Regardless of how I vote -- and it doesn't really matter, since I live in New York, which will go for Kerry with or without my help -- it's probable that I will develop some preference as to whom will occupy the White House for the next four years. But that preference is likely to be about as strong as my preference for spinach over olives: I don't like either of them, and there's precious little to choose between them, but if I have to have one of them, I find spinach easier, by an infinitessimal margin, to choke down.

This brings to mind something my (considerably more liberal) co-workers were saying yesterday: "if you think there's no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, you're insane."

I blush, you see. For I'm afraid, as a libertarianish commentator, I don't see all that much difference between them.

Actually, I think there are some significant differences between the two on for me two of more important domestic issues.

On Social Security, Bush is in favor of personal retirement accounts, opposes a tax increase, has said he would not rule out raising the retirement age, and his commission recommended switching from wage-indexing to price-indexing. Kerry has come out against all of these with the exception of a tax increase.

On health care, Bush did give us health care savings accounts (which is a step in the right direction) and is pushing for expanding the ability of small businesses to enter into risk pools. Kerry is pushing for another $900 Billion health care entitlement and is upset that the prescription drug benefit Bush signed into law isn’t as expensive ($534 Billion) as the one he wanted ($900 Billion – not to be confused with his new health care proposal). So yes while fiscal conservatives ought to be upset with the prescription drug benefit, it was still better than the one favored by Kerry and Bush is still generally more pro-market reform than Kerry.

The budget deficit? While I think there is some marginal effect on interest rates of the budget deficit, ultimately I think that any such effect will be dwarfed by the long term problems of old-age entitlements, which neither party seems prone to touch.

I disagree with your last point, Bush is far more likely to support reforming Social Security at least for the reasons listed above. The fact also that he stuck by this position during the mid-term elections when the conventional wisdom was that in light of the Enron scandal that any talk of personal retirement accounts was death for Republicans to me indicates that he is serious.

This puts me rather in the Milton Friedman camp: what we should worry about is not how spending is financed, but how high is the level of spending.

I agree, however when you look at their respective proposals, Kerry is still outspending Bush by something like $265 Billion a year. Even if it is a case of “lesser of two evils” on spending, Bush is clearly better than Kerry.

On judges, I think I lean Republican. The civil-rights inspired fiat-fest should be reined in, quickly. On the other hand, some Republican judges might be rather more inclined to reinforce social legislation I despise. So maybe I don't like the Republicans after all.

Actually, I think that the difference is that the more conservative judges are more inclined to give a wider latitude towards local control and the legislature rather than trying to rewrite the law. If all depends on whether you think that the SCOTUS and federal courts ought to be in the business of overturning every silly law by inventing a new constitutional right or whether you think that these decisions are best made at the most local level possible.

This brings to mind something my (considerably more liberal) co-workers were saying yesterday: "if you think there's no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, you're insane."

I blush, you see. For I'm afraid, as a libertarianish commentator, I don't see all that much difference between them.

Actually, I think there are some significant differences between the two on for me two of more important domestic issues.

On Social Security, Bush is in favor of personal retirement accounts, opposes a tax increase, has said he would not rule out raising the retirement age, and his commission recommended switching from wage-indexing to price-indexing. Kerry has come out against all of these with the exception of a tax increase.

On health care, Bush did give us health care savings accounts (which is a step in the right direction) and is pushing for expanding the ability of small businesses to enter into risk pools. Kerry is pushing for another $900 Billion health care entitlement and is upset that the prescription drug benefit Bush signed into law isn’t as expensive ($534 Billion) as the one he wanted ($900 Billion – not to be confused with his new health care proposal). So yes while fiscal conservatives ought to be upset with the prescription drug benefit, it was still better than the one favored by Kerry and Bush is still generally more pro-market reform than Kerry.

The budget deficit? While I think there is some marginal effect on interest rates of the budget deficit, ultimately I think that any such effect will be dwarfed by the long term problems of old-age entitlements, which neither party seems prone to touch.

I disagree with your last point, Bush is far more likely to support reforming Social Security at least for the reasons listed above. The fact also that he stuck by this position during the mid-term elections when the conventional wisdom was that in light of the Enron scandal that any talk of personal retirement accounts was death for Republicans to me indicates that he is serious.

This puts me rather in the Milton Friedman camp: what we should worry about is not how spending is financed, but how high is the level of spending.

I agree, however when you look at their respective proposals, Kerry is still outspending Bush by something like $265 Billion a year. Even if it is a case of “lesser of two evils” on spending, Bush is clearly better than Kerry.

On judges, I think I lean Republican. The civil-rights inspired fiat-fest should be reined in, quickly. On the other hand, some Republican judges might be rather more inclined to reinforce social legislation I despise. So maybe I don't like the Republicans after all.

Actually, I think that the difference is that the more conservative judges are more inclined to give a wider latitude towards local control and the legislature rather than trying to rewrite the law. If all depends on whether you think that the SCOTUS and federal courts ought to be in the business of overturning every silly law by inventing a new constitutional right or whether you think that generally these decisions are best made at the most local level possible and by elected legislators rather than unelected judges.

Well, about the fiat-fest, they warned us that was coming in law school back in the '60's - teleological jurisprudence.

On Middle East Foreign Policy, W has shifted from 50 years of containment to an aggressive policy of supporting democratization. Diplomats around the world have been disturbed by that - the Democrats too. Have to remember they're all socialists who want the world governed by the UN. The UN is like the European Union but run by the Third World. Honestly, you'd think the Democrats never read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or even as much American history as a candidate for citizenship needs to know.

sometime it's not what you vote for, but what you vote against. In some cases people vote for the Republicans just to keep the dem out of power. Lesser of two evils.

There's a war on, a war for civilization.
Bush is committed to waging it, Kerry isn't.
Slam dunk, Bush.
That is all.

As one for whom the Republicans are far too socialistic, I can honestly offer a very signigicant difference... the prospect for Social Security reform. As Grover Norquist put it recently, "He (W) didn't just touch the third rail of American politics, he fondled it!" meaning durging the 2000 campaign. There was a WSJ piece, I think by an administration wonk, outlining the economic and political gameplan. Now, needless to say, there is no talk of eradicating this New Deal boodoggle in toto but as I've said to many a wavering acquaintance, if he can fix SS, that alone would be a worthy use of 8 years in the big chair.

As one for whom the Republicans are far too socialistic, I can honestly offer a very signigicant difference... the prospect for Social Security reform. As Grover Norquist put it recently, "He (W) didn't just touch the third rail of American politics, he fondled it!" meaning durging the 2000 campaign. There was a WSJ piece, I think by an administration wonk, outlining the economic and political gameplan. Now, needless to say, there is no talk of eradicating this New Deal boodoggle in toto but as I've said to many a wavering acquaintance, if he can fix SS, that alone would be a worthy use of 8 years in the big chair.

Jane, I hope you were just going thru a bluesy morning's musings. I (a member of the conspiracy therorist VRWC) think we are at or approaching a cusp in our socio/political society. We have to take a stand. The age where we could look on the "one hand, but then on the other" is past. There IS a difference. Your vote will take us down one road or the other. Make your choice, don't equivocate. It's important.

RMC wrote:

There's a war on, a war for civilization. Bush is committed to waging it, Kerry isn't. Slam dunk, Bush. That is all.

Hopefully that will turn out to be the case. However as Jane pointed out, Bush has been pretty bad on spending issues and growing the size of government and simply pointing out that Kerry is worse while inarguably true, may not be sufficient reason to get those voters on board.

That being said, I do not agree with Jane and frankly think it is disingenuous to pretend that there is very little difference between the two candidates.

Bush favors Social Security reform that reduces the programs unfunded liabilities while allowing for personal retirement accounts and John Kerry does not. That is the largest item in the federal budget and if you are concerned about the size and growth of government spending, getting Social Security and Medicare reformed is a lot more important than discretionary spending.

Bush favors a market-approach to reforming health care and while he did sign an overly-expensive prescription drug benefit for Medicare, Kerry (a) wanted to a more expensive drug benefit, (b) wants to undo what limited competition has been introduced into Medicare, (c) wants another $900 Billion in health care entitlement spending on top of that, and (d) wants to import Canadian price controls on pharmaceuticals. Pretty big difference I’d say.

Awww.

How's the Big Fig doing?

Don't forget that a re-elected Bush will drive the usual suspects at Brad Delong's blog even further round the bend. And that's entertainment.

Patrick has a good point. With 4 more years of Bush, I think there's a real possibility that Paul Krugman's head might explode on live television.

Patrick R. Sullivan wrote:

Don't forget that a re-elected Bush will drive the usual suspects at Brad Delong's blog even further round the bend. And that's entertainment.

What about

Science policy - Bush has given science the least independence
environmental policy - while Bush uses the language of the free market, he really has simply loosened much progress on pollution
competence in world affairs - perhaps most of the world having the lowest opinion of the US in history is not entirely his fault (i mean that honestly) but he certainly hasn't helped

"In general, on any major foreign policy metric, the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats these days seem to be pretty trivial."

Do you mean, on any major DOMESTIC policy metric?

For someone who leans libertarian, wouldn't there be a clear choice of who to vote for: the Libertarian one?

What, you mean Harry Browne, again?

For someone who leans libertarian, wouldn't there be a clear choice of who to vote for: the Libertarian one?

What, you mean Harry Browne, again?

Christopher Brandow wrote:

What about Science policy - Bush has given science the least independence

Not quite (click on my name for the link):

Let's recall the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. In 1993, Princeton University physicist William Happer was fired from the Department of Energy, because he disagreed with Vice President Al Gore's views on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rejected the finding from the Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health, which declared that the intentional creation of human embryos for genetic research was ethical. Clinton simply banned any federal funding for such research.

And in 1993, the EPA used a meta-analysis of a number of studies to find that second-hand smoke caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers, and serious respiratory problems in children. That may well be, but the EPA had to put its thumb on the scales in order to get the result it wanted. The agency included just 11 out of 30 known studies on second-hand smoke in its meta-analysis, and even then, found no increased risk to non-smokers at the 95 percent confidence level, that had been the traditional agency standard. So, the agency simply moved the confidence level from 95 percent to 90 percent, in order to get the result it wanted.

At the time, I talked to a member of the EPA's scientific advisory board, an epidemiologist working at a leading east coast university, who requested anonymity. He told me that he knew it was inadvisable to change the confidence level. He didn't oppose the change, though, because he was afraid he would be kicked off the board, if he didn't go along. "I wanted to remain relevant to the policy process," he explained. He was also an EPA grant recipient.

It appears then the politicization of science (as if anyone doubted involving government in science would thereby involve politics as well) is something that went on long before Bush became president.

environmental policy - while Bush uses the language of the free market, he really has simply loosened much progress on pollution

Really? Evidence please.

competence in world affairs - perhaps most of the world having the lowest opinion of the US in history is not entirely his fault (i mean that honestly) but he certainly hasn't helped

I think that the people who say they have a low opinion of the US probably did so regardless of what Bush did or did not do and are simply making him the focus for their ire. Regardless, I could give a rat’s dershowitz about something as subjective as “how do you feel about America” when by all accounts we have received about as much cooperation with Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda as we would otherwise given the interests of the countries in question.

Though, I prefer Bush in most respects, there is something to having a Democrat as the president since then some spending bills might actually get vetoed for a change.

Sometimes the best you can hope for is a spending gridlock.

I would like to address specifically the people who really hate George Bush, rather that the people who, upon considered reflection, decide to vote for someone else.

I suspect the enormous difference that your collegues see between Bush and Gore or Kerry is largely cultural. By the term "cultural" I am not refering to stands on social issues, but rather to social identification. For example, for many of my well-off, educated neighbors in Brookline, MA, hating Republicans is something that is a part of their culture, of who they are and of why they feel good about themselves. They take this hatred (or at least dislike) as a mark of their intellegence, education, and good will. Bush pours gasoline onto this fire by his gestures to "middle America". Furthermore, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Clinton, Bush makes no similar gestures to my neighbors who think of themselves as part of America's moral and (especially) intellectual elite. A feeling of superiority to "middle America" is a substantial component of the self-esteem of all of the most vociferous Bush-haters that I know. Much of the antipathy of these people towards Bush arises from a feeling that he really is one of "them", not "our kind of people", or at least takes "them" seriously, which is almost as bad. Many people hate Bush not because of his policies but rather because Bush deeply offends their sense of superiority.

Sometimes the best you can hope for is a spending gridlock.

There are three problems with this:

1) Social Security and Medicare – the first and third largest items in the federal budget - are on autopilot and gridlock only means that we put off reform longer which makes it that much harder to deal with them. If you want to deal with these problems before the baby boom generation begins to retire, then that means you need both Houses of Congress with a pro-reform majority (or super-majority in the Senate). It also means you need a President who supports reform and that’s Bush.

2) There is no guarantee that the Republicans will keep control of the Senate, which was in Democratic hands for most of the first half of Bush’s first term (e.g. farm subsidies, education bill).

3) Even without having a majority in either House, the minority party is still able to exert considerable influence in legislation particularly in the Senate with a threat of a filibuster. The prescription drug benefit was held up a couple of times for not providing “enough” of a benefit and each time was made progressively more expensive until there were enough Democrats willing to sign on. With a Democratic President, the same tactic could and has been used in reverse to get the votes of more liberal Republicans.

"Both parties are preoccupied with the care and feeding of dinosaurs, but when they do spare a thought for the mammals, the Republicans scatter Purina Rodent Chow here and there haphazardly, while the Democrats set out cheese in rat traps."
--Henry Spencer

Funny, I don't consider myself a libertarian but I agree with most of what you say.

To me the choice for Kerry is based on two things.

One, I want divided government.

Two, I am socially liberal and I don't like the kind of social legislation continued GOP control of government will produce.

I don't really care about tax rates either, one way or another. Taxes will be raised because, as you wrote elsewhere, voters simply don't want lower spending.

I'm curious as to what you say about the estate tax. Aren't you concerned about the creation of 'permanent' elites? (Yes, I'm simplifyng).

I'm not sure what Bush-supported reform in Social Security and Medicare that Mr. Winson is talking about. The reform where we pass $500 billion programs after lying and saying they were $400 billion programs? He's right that you need pro-reform majority government to fix these problems, which will happen just about when Air Swine flight 400 takes off from LAX.

Count me as another person who thinks the best argument for Kerry is the need for divided government so that both parties block each other's extremes.

Don't know how I missed this post yesterday.

Well probably I'm voting for Kerry. But more to the point I'm voting for Bush to go. I'm voting that way for a bunch of reasons and unless I find out something dramatic, I suspect nothing is going to change my mind. Here are the top three reasons why:

1) I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake. Yes I am glad that Saddam is out of power. Yes I hope that Iraq becomes a democracy. Regardless, Bush just proved Al Queda right. We unilaterally went in, overthrew a government, and then occupied a country without direct provication. Just like Al Queda said we were going to. I think Bush has very little international credibility at this point. He's made it harder for foreign governments to partner with us due to a huge anti-American sentiment around the globe. We have gone from being the protecting (and somewhat resented) big-brother to the (hated) school-yard bully. We are now the bad guys. From what I have seen Kerry will attempt to fix this mess (which Bush obviously won't) and, just by the nature of his election, will perhaps improve our face on the world stage. Besides, I feel Bush has done such a bad job since last year in terms of foreign policy that--I think Finnegan could probably to a better job--so anyone is pretty much an improvement.

2) Moderate judges. I find it interesting that Judicial activism is never thought of as a good thing...unless you want the judicial activism sought. But what concerns me is reactionary judges on both sides. As an IP lawyer (one who represents large corporations) I tend to like more conservative, reasoned judges who are willing to look at things objectively. As someone who is liberal on social policy, I also like people who are not so bound by their religious or personal ethical beliefs that they feel it is their place to mandate their morals. That's a form of judicial activism too. With possibly three/four court seats up in the next four years I don't want another Thomas or Scalia on the court. I don't think they are objective. I also don't think we need another Ginsburg. I think with a republican congress and a democratic president we'll get compromise, not Bork. That's what I want. And do you really think that the Senate is going to turn democrat? I doubt it.

3) This is a general item. I remember when Bush I was running for re-election (this was the first presidential election I was allowed to vote in, having turned 18 only meer months after the 1988 election) I kept saying to people that a re-election is like rehiring an employee after a four year contract. I look at it like that. Has this guy done a good job for the past four years? I now know what I am going to get for the next four years...will this guy do? If I have negative answers to these two questions, then I vote for the other guy (unless the other guy is Pat Robertson or someone else I deem REALLY scary). I followed my own advice in 1993 when I then voted out the incumbent democrat for mayor and voted in a republican. So, has Bush done a good job for the past four years? I don't think so. As everyone now knows I think he's terrible on foreign policy and made us an international force to be feared...not respected. He has directly lied to the American people on everything from WMD to how much entitlement programs are going to cost that he wants to pass. The lies Clinton told were never on this scale and Republicans wanted to boot him out because he lied about a hummer in the Oval Office and a boon land deal made before he was president. I personally think all politicians lie, so I am hardly surprised, but I find the fact that the Bush administration blatently does it and then uses smear tactics against those who point it out particularly offensive.

So obviously I'm not planning on voting for Bush anytime soon. Don't worry Thorley, I'm in a Blue state, so it'll hardly matter. Please note, while these are the top three reasons I won't vote for Bush, I have read very little of Kerry's propaganda, so I have no idea why I would vote for him (it's possible I won't). I figure I have seven months to decide.

There are a number of people who want to punish Bush for his mistakes, and I suppose that's one way to look at the election. "Altruistic punishers" people who will seek revenge on wrongdoers even at cost to themselves, are one of the forces keeping bad behavior in check.

The problem is, the cost could be pretty high. Am I willing to chuck Bush out in favour of someone who will make even more policy decisions I dislike, in order to teach him a lesson? No. That means that I need a candidate who is at least as good as he is on the metrics I care about.

The job model breaks down because there's only one other candidate. Apropos of the previous paragraph, if I have to consider renewing a mediocre programmer, but know that if I fire the programmer I'll be forced to hire my boss's idiot nephew, I'll stick with the mediocrity I already have.

Meg,

Really, John Kerry or GWB...we already hired the idiot nephew who, in some respects, was not nearly as awful as we thought and in others was a whole heck of a lot worse. We now have the option to fire him and replace him with an eminently qualified candidate who still probably wouldn't be our first choice, but who at least has a good understanding of the job and is a qualified candidate...something I don't think the idiot nephew ever had or ever was.

I also have never been able to figure out why libertarians think that republicans are better for the economy. They spend just as much as democrats...more even, they just spend it on different stuff. Now I don't want to get you started on economic policy and what made the Clinton administration have both a smaller government than Bush I, Bush II or Reagan, nor do I wanna get into surpluses vs. deficits. We all know the myriad factors that went into both of those aspects of each administration. Besides, you know a whole lot more about economics then I ever will so even though you won't convince me of your possition, you'll know where to find the emperical data to back up your possition, and I won't know where to get the data to back up mine without extensive research. It would be as if we were arguing about the fair use doctrine in copyright law. I could go on for hours but I know a heck of a lot about the subject while you know somewhat less and I know where to cite to, which you do not. But if John Kerry is in the white house to you really think any 900 million dollar anything is going to get passed? I don't think so. And given the way the congress has been passing expensive entitlement (aren't republicans supposed to hate those?) bills like medicare, I think that might be the best thing for the economic health of the country if we had a little gridlock. Besides, I don't think Kerry is gonna be so stupid as to spend money on every little entitlement program out there. Dems have a reputation for spending money like water so for the past 20 years they've been trying to live down that reputation.

You say:

"There are a number of people who want to punish Bush for his mistakes, and I suppose that's one way to look at the election. "Altruistic punishers" people who will seek revenge on wrongdoers even at cost to themselves, are one of the forces keeping bad behavior in check."

I don't want Bush out of office because he makes mistakes. All presidents make mistakes. It's what we little people call human. It's the mistakes Bush makes that scare the S@#%t out of me. So let us look at it another way. Carter made a huge number of mistakes in his administration. I think it's safe to say that. Do you think we should have given him four more years instead of electing Reagan?

I wasn't trying to argue that GWB is necessarily the lesser of two evils; only that in order to be persuaded to throw him out and replace him with Kerry, I need some evidence that Kerry will do as well or better. I wasn't trivialising your position . . . although of course, as we've both pointed out, we could vote for Bozo the Clown and New York would still go Kerry.

"I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake. Yes I am glad that Saddam is out of power. Yes I hope that Iraq becomes a democracy. Regardless, Bush just proved Al Queda right. We unilaterally went in, overthrew a government, and then occupied a country without direct provication."

Other than the 14 UN resolutions he ignored, thus violating the ceasefire agreement signed in 1991. Other than the fact Iraq was firing on our planes patrolling the "no fly zones". Other than the fact that Osama bin Laden himself stated he attacked us because of our "infidel troops" stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect that country from Saddam Hussein.

Jane, good stuff. I don't agree entirely, but I love how you say it.

I did think I'd point out that your "passed out and my face hit the keyboard thing" has been done...by Jonah Goldberg. Anyhow...

M

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

Libertarians like me don't want the government to know anything about them in the name of civil liberties. I do taxes every year, as a small business owner, that reveals to the govt everything I do. Until a stupid democrat talks to me about simplifying the tax code at the same time they talk about the patriot act, I will support republicans. Democrats want to protect terrorists with their civil rights ideas and conservative (like steve forbes) want to protect me. No choice at all for this libertarian - vote conservative.

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

Harry Browne probably won't be running -- I hear Gary Nolan may well be the LP candidate this year, or possibly wacko Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.

If you New Yorkers could vote for Bozo and still get Kerry (the way we Virginians could vote for Mickey Mouse and still end up with Dubya), why not cast your vote for a third-party candidate and disrupt the prevailing duopoly?

Also, Kerry is against amending the constitution to ban Gay marriage, and in favor of extending federal benefits to married or civilly united same-sex couples. So he supports Gay marriages and opposes Gay marriage -- in other words, he's for it now that he's against it, or against it now that he's for it, or something like that. [sound of head exploding]

BTW, Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not marry in another state, but in DC. Seems trivial, but it's quite important when you think about it -- DC, as a federal jurisdiction, never had the Jim Crow laws other Southern states had. And in DC, nobody had the right to vote, whether they were White or Black.

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

Harry Browne probably won't be running -- I hear Gary Nolan may well be the LP candidate this year, or possibly wacko Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.

If you New Yorkers could vote for Bozo and still get Kerry (the way we Virginians could vote for Mickey Mouse and still end up with Dubya), why not cast your vote for a third-party candidate and disrupt the prevailing duopoly?

Also, Kerry is against amending the constitution to ban Gay marriage, and in favor of extending federal benefits to married or civilly united same-sex couples. So he supports Gay marriages and opposes Gay marriage -- in other words, he's for it now that he's against it, or against it now that he's for it, or something like that. [sound of head exploding]

BTW, Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not marry in another state, but in DC. Seems trivial, but it's quite important when you think about it -- DC, as a federal jurisdiction, never had the Jim Crow laws other Southern states had. And in DC, nobody had the right to vote, whether they were White or Black.

Harry Browne probably won't be running -- I hear Gary Nolan may well be the LP candidate this year, or possibly wacko Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.

If you New Yorkers could vote for Bozo and still get Kerry (the way we Virginians could vote for Mickey Mouse and still end up with Dubya), why not cast your vote for a third-party candidate and disrupt the prevailing duopoly?

Also, Kerry is against amending the constitution to ban Gay marriage, and in favor of extending federal benefits to married or civilly united same-sex couples. So he supports Gay marriages and opposes Gay marriage -- in other words, he's for it now that he's against it, or against it now that he's for it, or something like that. [sound of head exploding]

BTW, Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not marry in another state, but in DC. Seems trivial, but it's quite important when you think about it -- DC, as a federal jurisdiction, never had the Jim Crow laws other Southern states had. And in DC, nobody had the right to vote, whether they were White or Black.

I mean, really, in this election, what will I be voting about? Gay marriage? I don't think it's a good idea to handle it at the federal level (see Roe, Wade v.)--plus, neither candidate supports it.

Anyway, I'm not going to be voting on gay marriage either, since both candidates are against it. Ish, but as I keep reading your entry of course I'll be voting Democrat, because I don't consider a judge recognizing a law that keeps me from marrying is unconstitutional according to the state's law, a "fiat-fest". Gosh, isn't that what judges are for? If you don't think so, you can probably take judicial appointments as a deciding factor for you as well.

Keith

Harry Browne probably won't be running -- I hear Gary Nolan may well be the LP candidate this year, or possibly wacko Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.

If you New Yorkers could vote for Bozo and still get Kerry (the way we Virginians could vote for Mickey Mouse and still end up with Dubya), why not cast your vote for a third-party candidate and disrupt the prevailing duopoly?

Also, Kerry is against amending the constitution to ban Gay marriage, and in favor of extending federal benefits to married or civilly united same-sex couples. So he supports Gay marriages and opposes Gay marriage -- in other words, he's for it now that he's against it, or against it now that he's for it, or something like that. [sound of head exploding]

BTW, Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not marry in another state, but in DC. Seems trivial, but it's quite important when you think about it -- DC, as a federal jurisdiction, never had the Jim Crow laws other Southern states had. And in DC, nobody had the right to vote, whether they were White or Black.

My browser is screwing up again (Macs are like socialism, and work about as well). Please, Ms. Galt, if you can, delete my excess posts and accept my sincerest apologies. Thanx.

I can't bring myself to vote for either side of the One Party this election.

I'm tempted to vote for Bush just as a protest against the "intelligencia" of the world who are morons in actuality.

I would love to vote Libertarian, but their head-in-the-sand/play-pattycake-and-be-nice view of terrorism and its state sponsors really has me PO'ed.

Ultimately, I will likely be voting "no" to the entire system by not participating. I do somewhat like George Carlin's view...."can't blame me, I didn't vote for 'em."

I can't bring myself to vote for either side of the One Party this election.

I'm tempted to vote for Bush just as a protest against the "intelligencia" of the world who are morons in actuality.

I would love to vote Libertarian, but their head-in-the-sand/play-pattycake-and-be-nice view of terrorism and its state sponsors really has me PO'ed.

Ultimately, I will likely be voting "no" to the entire system by not participating. I do somewhat like George Carlin's view...."can't blame me, I didn't vote for 'em."

Voting for Bush to punish him for the policies I disagree with? Nope, there will be no cutting off of noses to spite faces in my house.

Voting for either candidate because of his specific position on a specific issue will not be happening either. This will be the eighth presidential election I vote in and one thing I've learned is that voting for a candidate based on his pre-election positions on the issues is a bit like predicting the weather next month: unreliable.

What did GWB say in the 2000 campaign? That we shouldn't be engaged in nation building. What are we doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nation building. Why? Because 9/11 changed the underlying assumptions. The consistent part is that GWB believes that safety and security are a legitimate role for the US Government and the nation building in which we are engaged is done in pursuit of national security.

I'll be voting for the candidate whose temperment and philosophy match up best with mine. And that would be the guy who mispronounces 'nuclear'.

I'll be holding my nose on this one, but voting for Dubya. Solely because of his foreign policy, and that he enrages the right people. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," as they say.

Frankly, if it wasn't for the vehement hatred expoused by the bobos towards Bush, I very well might have voted Kerry. So, the anti-war movement can claim credit for changing one person's mind.

Of course, I live in Illinois (even worse - Chicago, aieeeee!), which will go Kerry, no matter how many dead people have to be forced to vote. (And wait 'til you guys get a load of our destined-to-be-our-new-senator, Barack Obama. If NPR and Jacques Chirac put together their perfect candidate in a lab, he'd be it.)

If they're tied on most real issues, then you might as well go with the guy who has the better personality. Silly, but true.

John Kerry, just the other day, was criticizing George Bush for withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. But he conveniently forgets that he himself voted for the Byrd-Hegel act that preemptively banned any treaty even resembling Kyoto. Said act passed the senate 95-0, IIRC.

Kerry was also blasting Bush over the "fact" that he hasn't done anything to combat AIDS worldwide. But the truth is he's giving more to the fight than any U.S. president (or any world leader) ever. (And yes, John Kerry did in fact vote for Bush's AIDS/Africa spending.)

This and myriad other examples are why you can't tell what John Kerry will do, exactly, if he is elected to office.

Just one tiny reason that I'm voting for Kerry: Bush's comments on the war on terror

If they're tied on most real issues, then you might as well go with the guy who has the better personality. Silly, but true.

John Kerry, just the other day, was criticizing George Bush for withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. But he conveniently forgets that he himself voted for the Byrd-Hegel act that preemptively banned any treaty even resembling Kyoto. Said act passed the senate 95-0, IIRC.

Kerry was also blasting Bush over the "fact" that he hasn't done anything to combat AIDS worldwide. But the truth is he's giving more to the fight than any U.S. president (or any world leader) ever. (And yes, John Kerry did in fact vote for Bush's AIDS/Africa spending.)

This and myriad other examples are why you can't tell what John Kerry will do, exactly, if he is elected to office.

Jane,

Do you really see no difference on the gay marriage issue? Bush supports an amendment, Kerry opposes it. Kerry explicitly supports civil unions. Bush doesn't.

To reduce the whole thing down to "both oppose gay marriage" is gross ovesimplification and, I think, a rather blatant rationalization of unwillingness to concede that Kerry actually is much closer to the libertarian position on this.

I think there's something to be said for the fact that a dem president and republican congress will create gridlock, leading to less spending. As we've seen with Clinton and now with Bush, republicans only act like conservatives when they're being opposed by democrats. I probably would vote for Kerry if not for two things: 1. his view of terrorism as a law enforcement issue, 2. his elitist, condescending, 'do you know who I am' personality. If Bush were to go make privatization of social security a major campaign issue, I'd probably vote for him. Otherwise, it'll just be a choice between two government lovers and I'll be voting Libertarian.

Jane,
I'm in your shoes, but if you've decided to vote major party, I think Bush is marginally better. First, a win for Kerry will be determined on some level to be a victory for foreign policy weakness by our enemies and erstwhile allies, which would lower our long term security and future diplomatic room to manuever. Second, while Bush has been bad on trade, he at least talks the talk if not walking the walk. Kerry not only walks like a protectionist - he's unabashadly for it. Finally, as you alluded to earlier, Kerry will spend more money than Bush. Of course Bush's spending record is atrocius, but I don't want it to get worse.

As an American living in Switzerland, I merely keep a pulse on who the French and Germans dislike the most and vote for that guy. Ok, that's not entirely true as I don't usually vote Democrat but it certainly works in this case.

The European's are in a near frenzy over the possibility that W gets four more. I've got steak bets all over the place.

Why is Europes attitude a good bellweather? Because the true difference between American's and European's is American's focus on the solution to the problem whereas European's focus on the problem with the solution. And ok, we shower more often and our women shave their armpits.

Aside from that, it's a matter of talk versus action, leadership versus following, risk taking versus risk adverse, and about winning rather than not losing. I fear my European friends share the latter of all the above traits.

They fear Bush because there is movement. Kerry is loved in Europe because he's one of them, as was Clinton - mistresses and all.

As a lifetime Democrat who has since 911 has found himself more sympathetic to issues not in the "wheelhouse" of a typical Democrat. Reading this page really turns me away from libertarianism as an alternative. It makes me sort of understand why Larry Elder left behind pure “libertarianism” as he rightfully felt that too many libertarians to be weak on foreign policy or have certain problems discerning proper priorities, I think he is right.

While I have never voted for a Republican, this is not even a close call, thankfully the priorities of most here (which by the way on 80% of the issues I agree with) are not held by the majority of the people. One part I don’t agree with is the willingness to assume Kerry or anyone will be equal to Bush and his foreign policy team. I don’t see Bush selling Iraq short. I don’t care how you interpret his comments or political statements. People like to use Bush’s words and their interpretations of such against him. I like to judge his actions and results based against predictions and assumptions that pre-dated his actions. I was against going into Iraq and screamed all the clichés of disaster that awaited us. If everything were to go as horrible as possible (which they won’t) from this point forward, then Bush will still have exceeded expectations and predictions by a mile.

As the son of Holocaust survivors and a wife whose father is the only immediate family member to survive the Holocaust, I find myself somewhat ashamed at the hand wringing and arguing on issues that should be way more sidelined in such a climate. Bush has gone to Iraq against the will of the world and showed a resolve I will never expect or assume from Kerry or anyone. He must have made it look to easy for all the second guessers to have such surety that what he has done could somehow be pulled out of a hat by someone else. Those who think he made it too difficult undervalue the difficulty of the task at hand. Those who think he is not up to finish the task continue to underestimate him. My youngest brother is a gay liberal Democrat and is serious enough to understand this.

I find your nit picking in serious times to be discouraging, however I find solace in the fact that such disproportionate thinking will be rejected by the electorate. As a Democrat of reasonable standing having contributed thousands upon thousands as well as time to the Democratic Party, I must say that for Bush to do politically what many here have suggested would contribute to an untimely political death. Bush wants to fight a War on Terror, not a Culture War, I’m sorry to those who see the Culture War as so important this election cycle. The Marriage Amendment Proposal was a way to “kick the can” down the road. It will never pass and he knows it. I would suggest to those on the left (I’m for Gay Marriage by the way) to not overplay the issue politically as well. Your actions have been as extreme as your political counterparts, because you seem to disrespect the causes of others in the process. Both sides antagonize the other and invite the reactions. The President was forced to act and as I said, and wisely I might add, “kicked the can” down the road. Same goes to certain other issues. Those who think the Democrats are the same fiscally are naïve to put it kindly.

Bush is playing to the broader interests on such issues as his Political Capital is reserved for the War on Terror. For the first time in my life I will be grateful that the “red state” Neanderthals which I formerly held in contempt, will show more common sense than the “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel whole crowd blue state" elitists, with its tenancy to strain over the details.

May Jacksonian common sense rule this November.

Percy,
I'm also a captive of the People's Republic of Illinois-will county side of the tracks.
It's it a joke that the election is still 7 months away and yet they've already named Obama victor. I'm a bit of an odd duck. I support less govt., but I lean right. I like the libertarians but I'm against abortion-but ,like Jane, believe it-and homosexual marriage ,should be decided at the state level. I believe we need to tighten our boarders, and I disagree with the libertarians on the drug issue. I'm voting for Bush because of National security , some social issues and because he is FAR more likely to be supportive of states rights than John F-ing Kerry.
Twerp www.protestwarrior.com

Jane: I have difficulty indentifying an issue where Kerry's position, to the extent its possible to determine his position, is preferable to the Republican/Libertarian/Conservative alternative. No one seems to have noted that there is a substantial difference between the Bush and Kerry positions on trade: Kerry is both a protectionist and opposed to globalization, which is a policy of economic disaster, even in the short run. With respect to judges, at any level, the left prefers judges that advocate and legislate through judicial opinions particular social or economic positions that would not presently be adopted through democratic processes. Kerry has already promised that he will select judges on the basis of their predetermined view on one of the central political issues of our time, one which divides the country approximately 50/50. Roe v. Wade, and other left of center judicial legislation, makes bad law because it removes political issues from the political process, where they belong. If Roe had never happened, CA and NY would still have abortion pretty much on demand, while Miss and GA might not. The beauty of federalism is that, within limits, a person is free to go where his or her views predominate, rather than being subjected to the coercive power of the state. On the issue of judges, Bush is far superior to Kerry, notwithstanding the positions sometimes taken by social conservatives re Constitutional amemdments, etc. Social conservatives are primarily acting defensively,and no doubt without any realistic hope of success, exercising the only alternative remaining to them.

Kate expresses my feelings pretty well. Perhaps our mutual experience as attorneys makes us relatively pragmatic about things, the judiciary in particular. Those of us who actually work in the legal trenches understand how malleable the law can be in the hands of both liberals and so-called strict-constructionist conservatives (IMO, such a concept is mostly illusory). Almost anyone with an agenda can find a legal rationale for it.

My primary fear about re-electing Bush is that he'll nominate one or more ideologues to the Supreme Court, especially after the perceived betrayal of Souter. One or two ideologues per side is OK, but a court full of them? No, thank you. I want moderate pragmatists, and Kerry is more likely to nominate them. If there is one area in which we can count on a meaningful difference between Bush and Kerry, this is it, so I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry.

I suspect that even many conservatives will live to regret it if Bush gets the chance to pack the Court. I'm not one to cry wolf (and neither am I a criminal defense lawyer), but I'm concerned about serious encroachments on personal liberties over time.

The proposed marriage amendment is out of the hands of the Court, but it's symptomatic of where a Bush Court and administration would lead. There's a clear difference between Bush and Kerry on that and similar personal liberty issues.

On foreign policy, my problem is not with Bush's resolve, or with the principles behind the Iraq action, but in the execution. The invasion was surprisingly easy (the opposition, after all, virtually laid down), but there have been too many gross miscalculations: WMD, Turkey, post-war planning, troop needs, costs, to name only a few (and not to mention putting al Qeada on the back burner, to quote General Shelton), making me wonder whether these guys have sound judgment and whether ideology has overcome prudence. This is a man who admits that he doesn't read the paper, raising concerns in my mind that he doesn't have an adequate intellectual grasp of history and world affairs. The Harvard management philosophy has its merits but I wonder if it suffices in this context.

As Kate suggested, what Kerry says in the campaign shouldn't be taken at face value - he's playing to certain crowds in order to get elected, as is Bush. It's hard to feel positive about Kerry but I don't believe he would be weak on defense - just, perhaps, more judicious. I believe it would be in our best interests to restore some international credibility and goodwill, and I think Kerry is more likely to accomplish that.

I appreciate the complaint that there isn't a sufficient difference between the two, but on these particular issues I think there are important differences and that, whichever way one goes, a vote would be meaningful.

I like the general tenor of the post, but there are a couple of observations.

1. On the war, I'm not very confident that Kerry takes it seriously enough.

2. On judges, I'd argue that conservative judges are fundamentally better because the odious decisions they make can generally be overturned in a generation or so as cultural mores change. That process isn't fast enough for some, of course, but it's easier than overturning the bad decisions of liberal judges, which typically get enshrined in terms of constitutional precedent.

3. And Jane, you didn't mention this... how about trade policy. From a political perspective, it's unfortunately clear that the whole political landscape seems to have shifted to a more protectionist stance, and it's necessary for pols of both parties to pander to the luddites more than in the past. That being said, we'd be a lot better off, IMO, with the guy who's pandering less. The big thing I think is being left out in her analysis is trade policy. While Bush has waffled and flirted with protection, Kerry has been making it a central theme of his campaign in a way that Clinton, for instance, never did.

Jane, again, maybe you can explain why from a libertarian perspective you think it makes no difference whether the State takes 45% or 35% of your marginal income?

To get elected at the lowest possible cost there should be very little differences between the parties.

Our system is designed to produce parties that split the differences.

It is inherently a conservative system.

annoyingtwerpnextdoor: I'm really wary of Bush on federalism issues; have we so soon forgotten Ashcroft's attacks on the twice-passed Death With Dignity act in Oregon?

The reason I supported Gore will be about the same I support Kerry. I am afraid of either of the two parties having too much power. I am also afraid of governance by doctrine. I am also afraid Bush lacks credibility. I apologize, I move quick(and its about me, not a debate)...

I grew up with a dislike of both Al and John. Now, as I grow older, I am a little more cognizant of the ways different politicians pander to their audience. This pandering is what gave me such a poor opinion of them in the first place. As an example, many of the things Al and John have said on the senate floor about the environment have just been terrible (blind bunny stories anyone?). As an environmentally conscious anti-environmentalist, I am unwilling to be enviro-fodder. I am also unwilling to be corporate-fodder. I just do not trust corporate America to be trustees of our natural resources(ever look at the EPA superfund website), or anything else except their own self-interest(this frees them to concentrate on what they are good at).

I do not want to be lectured on the holiness of the "supply side" doctrine, for it too closely resembles every other economic doctrine, hence the word DOCTRINE(which seems to mean freedom from independent thought). Some do not trust the science behind global warming, because their is too little data. These same people will tell you, with a straight face, about the glory of supply side economics. This is where credibility comes in. Bush ran on it, turns out he has none(in my eyes). Bush made me believe we had rock solid evidence of heavy WMD in Iraq. Clinton? He lied too, I could care less about oral sex, this is WAR. Look, I have supported ousting Saddam since August 2, 1990. I do not like to be lied to about going to WAR. Aw, come on, Saddam was a bad guy... Bush still lied. Fresh innocent blood is on our hands again(as always happens in war, this is unavoidable). Would we have done it unilaterally had we known the absolute truth? Do we still not want to be as righteous a people as possible? Did we forget what comes before "and carry a big stick", or just change it to "use cowboy colloquialisms"?

So it comes down to another example: Although I still heavily support nuclear power, I think it is something we cannot do until the country as a whole(read real majority) is ready to accept it. No unilateral decisions. No energy doctrine. Peroid(are you listening Dick?) Remember, this is a democracy. I am with Leif and Kate, I want GRIDLOCK. Gridlock = conservatism? Aw, fiddlesticks, I forgot Ashcroft! HAHAHAHAHA!

ps On the gay marriage issue... everyone knows what would happen if the polls suddenly changed in favor of gay marriage. Bush would button up and Kerry would flip-flop. If I were at war, who would I chose to watch my back? I would want the one that is intelligent and adaptable.

Why is it Bush is so underestimated? I ask myself that. His Vulcans and team are the best we have had in office in a long while. How many Presidents actually have made a difference in the entire global infrastructure?

Global socialism terrifies me more than Al Qaeda. A capitalistic Middle East would have the same global effect reforming Germany and Japan had after WWII. The Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Powell's of the world have more conviction in their viewpoints than a dozen John Kerry or Al Gore generic flip-flopping power grabbers.

Yes, this frightens some folks. "They believe in something! Aiiigggghhhh!"

America has many enemies. The socialist octopus called the EU is spreading and simultaneously impoverishing many Germans while bringing money to the old axis powers. Sweden's holding out (they don't want the EU to touch their oil wealth) and the UK never leaves Brussel's target sight. Germany's reunification was a disaster - the people they reunited with were "no longer really Germans" as one former "West" German so aptly put it.

So while one can be bored about politics, the choices we make now will have serious impacts on the quality of life for billions of people within just fifty years.

Does the world become a big America?
Does the world become a socialist EU?

I know what Chirac and Schroeder want. What Kerry wants is power and entitlement to go along with the money. He's a complete lightweight surrounded by folks who do scare me.

If the world is to become wealthy, legislation must diminish and capitalism must grow.

An EU world will eventually lead to global poverty. Maybe not for you or your children but your great-grandchildren will definitely suffer under impossible taxation, limited freedoms and state-controlled industry.

Bush's team has a fundamental understanding of America's role in shaping the future world. Does Kerry, or his hanger's on, have that?

Provincial and temporal views are fine for some. Some folks think what happens in 50 or 100 years won't effect them and so it doesn't really matter. When one believes in reincarnation, like I do, this shortterm outlook is quickly abandoned.

What type of world do I want to return to in 2095? 2220?

What type of world would you return to?

Food for thought.

SDAI-Tech1

hi megan,
i wonder if the reason you see little substantial difference between the candidates is because your analysis is so narrow. i think the dynamic of government will change significantly if kerry is elected (for the good? that is the debatable question).

here is a question for you and other commentators: if gore had been elected, would we be in the same place we are now? after all, if there was little difference between the candidates the outcomes would be the same, right? i am pretty certain that most commentators on this web-site (given the way that comments run) would argue that bush would have done a better job than gore. yet, there was apparently little difference between them, according to your analysis.

or do we think that what people say in the lead up to an election is not always a good indicator of what they will do once they are in office? broken election promises, anyone? how will they handle the unexpected? we are also voting on vice-presidents as well. does that change anything?

finally, is there a fundamental difference between the two candidates once i widen the circle of analysis to include the government apparatus as a whole. the executive is one branch of three. changing leadership in the excutive, given the system of checks and balances, will lead to large differences in outcomes of government decisions, even if there "appear" to be little substantive differences in the "stated" positions of the presidential candidates.

War for civilization? And Bush is fighting it?

More like war AGAINST civilization. This is the man that almost died eating a pretzel, for Pete's sake, then went off and unleashed the world's most dangerous army against an innocent country (no WMD, no breaking of any UN resolutions, remember!)...

Those who consider abortion to be an initial use of force also have a slam-dunk for Bush.

Interesting discussion above. My take is that as a libertarian, I have NO choice but to vote against Bush in this election.

Bush is not fiscally conservative (tax-cut and spend, e.g., Medicare); he's expanded the power of the federal government as much as he can (energy bill, so-called marriage amendment, etc.); he's worked hard against civil liberties (Patriot act, "partial-birth" abortion). He's failed on 2nd Amendment rights (he backed the assault rifle ban). He's proposed a counter-productive education bill that tramples on states' rights.

He's spending 180 billion at least on a war that didn't need to be fought in Iraq, and entangled us in that country's affairs for years in a way that will result in more American deaths. As much as I dislike the idea of the expansion of the federal government that Homeland Security involved, that 180 billion could have been spent doing something much more useful, like _actually_ increasing homeland security, instead of increasing the bureaucracy without accomplishing anything at all.

It seems in the modern political setup that divided government is best, and our best shot at that seems to me to be getting rid of Bush.

Jane Galt: On judges, I think I lean Republican. The civil-rights inspired fiat-fest should be reined in, quickly. On the other hand, some Republican judges might be rather more inclined to reinforce social legislation I despise. So maybe I don't like the Republicans after all.

Judges should be selected according to their adherence to the Constitution and the law. You seem to want judges who will rule according to your policy preferences. Unless libertarians have given up on self-government, your position seems indefensible.

“Jane Galt despises a particular piece of social legislation” isn’t a serious principle of jurisprudence.

Kate: ... Bush just proved Al Queda right. We unilaterally went in, overthrew a government, and then occupied a country without direct provication. Just like Al Queda said we were going to. I think Bush has very little international credibility at this point. He's made it harder for foreign governments to partner with us due to a huge anti-American sentiment around the globe.

- Bush “proved al Qaeda right”? You seem to think they hate us primarily because of what we do rather than for what we are. This doesn’t seem credible to me. See NPR and the Guardian on al Qaeda’s spiritual/theoretical origins and Bernard Lewis on “The Roots of Muslim Rage”.

- No direct provocation? What about the 10/02 assassination of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan by "Al Qaeda affiliates" operating out of Baghdad? The attacks on US and British planes in the no-fly zones? The 1993 assassination attempt against former President Bush? Saddam’s protection of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

- Bush has “very little international credibility”? That’s the reverse of the truth. He may be widely disliked, but that’s because he generally acts on his stated principles without flinching. Bush’s hard-earned credibility is the main reason that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program.

Kate: As someone who is liberal on social policy, I also like people who are not so bound by their religious or personal ethical beliefs that they feel it is their place to mandate their morals. That's a form of judicial activism too. With possibly three/four court seats up in the next four years I don't want another Thomas or Scalia on the court. I don't think they are objective.

I agree with you about judges and “religious or ethical beliefs”. Do you agree that liberal judges are at least as likely as conservatives to (mis)apply their morals (e.g., Roe, Griswold, the Mass. same-sex marriage decision)?

I think you complete misinterpret Scalia. He gave a speech on the subject (judges and their morals) a few years ago that’s perfectly consistent with your position. What do you think of his argument?

I’m not sure what all this prattling is about over whom libertarians should support between Bush and Kerry. It seems like those professing libertarian ideology have little choice in November as the marginal differences come up between the two, time and again, to be small. Regardless of whether one supports the current foreign policy of Bush, one also must concede that our involvement in Iraq will be long lasting no matter who wins. The idea that EU or NATO involvement portends a smaller role in Iraq for us is wishful thinking at best as our NATO allies have less combined military power than the U.S. Army alone.

Accordingly, as a libertarian that holds out that the Libertarian party is ineffective due to their lack of an incremental plan to roll back the government, it seems necessary to vote for whom ever the Libertarian candidate is to ensure that a large enough block of us join arms to threaten the viability of the two party system in the eyes of the major party establishment. Otherwise we marginalize our voices and again become taken for granted by the GOP (as most of us would lean toward Bush on the basis of confiscatory federal tax policy in the history of Democratic legislation.)

As Larry Elder said when defecting from the Libertarian party back to the GOP “Sometimes you just have to pick the side you’re already on.” If the ambivalence to the current choices is so damn troubling how can any self respecting libertarian support the status quo of either party?

Just a thought…

Adios "Dave" (not David Budge. but the "Dave" whose comments are now gone). Next time have something to say or spit out insults on your own blog.

David Budge has good points, but I'm afraid the only way to rest the GOP back from the religious right is to force them to come back to us for support, and the easiest way to do that is to vote for Kerry.

Not sure if someone has brought this up yet, but I think a good reason to vote for Kerry (the best one I can come up with anyways) is to no longer have the Republicans controlling the Executive and Legislative branches. Between the 1994 takeover of the House by the Republicans and 2000, spending was actually brought under control. Since 2000 it's gone through the roof. Obviously there are reasons for this, but I think the only way to restore some fiscal sanity is to either have the Democrats gain control of the Senate or get Kerry in the White House. Hopefully he wouldn't mess up things too bad, but at least they could perhaps start dealing with these insane budget deficits.

"I don't give a tinker's damn whether we withdraw unilaterally or multilaterally."
You may not give a "damn" of your own, but the tinker's possession which gives us both a metaphor for something insignificant and a euphemism for our damns is a (very tiny) "dam."

The times when the country comes closest to libertarian philosophy is when there is divided government. Since its almost certain the Republicans will continue to control both the House and the Senate, I'm voting for Kerry.

The times when the country comes closest to libertarian philosophy is when there is divided government. Since its almost certain the Republicans will continue to control both the House and the Senate, I'm voting for Kerry.

The desire to make "small government" the issue during war time is pretty discouraging. Either one believes we are at war or not. If not, I'm glad you weren't around during WWII arguing tax policy, judges etc. I believe we are at war and that trumps everything. Kerry would be worse, and his team of advisors down right scary. No Thanks!

I have voted Libertarian for the last several presidential elections. In 2004 I will vote Republican. Before 9-11, I could vote purely to encourage 3rd parties without any bad consequences. I could vote for my view on domestic policies without any bad consequences. There was no worthwhile difference between the Dems and Reps because both would increase gov't and decrease freedom. Losing would not be horrible. Well, one thing I have learned is we will survive the Dem or Rep gov't domestically. Under both the gov't will grow, regs will grow, debt will grow. And yet we will grow. The War is a totally diifferent kettle. I want an aggressive, unapologetic, holistic strategy in the WOT. It is irrelevant that a libertarian might have the best strategy because the libertarian has absolutely no chance of winning and implementing that strategy. I must choose between the dems and reps because the winner of that contest will determine the strategy. There is no reason to believe Kerry will pursue anything approaching an aggressive strategy. We know he holds a delusional view of the UN and its value in this fight. Bush's strategy is not only right but has already shown short term gains. I will vote Rep for president for the 1st time in 27 years of voting.

Here's a difference unfortunately no one in America seems to be interested in: the standing of the two men in the international community. America will be better-loved among the world's nations when it is no longer being run by Bush, who has alienated allies and fueled anti-Americanism. Kyoto, steel tariffs, warmongering -- even his opening statement at the Salt Lake City winter Olympics (where he departed from the traditional greeting to add that he was opening the games "in the name of a proud, determined and grateful nation") -- have been unpopular abroad. Americans who are concerned about their nation's status in the international community cannot support Republican hegemony.

"America will be better-loved" - the only way America will be better-loved is if it voluntarily dissolved. You can't placate overseas bigots.

I'm rooting for anyone who hold in contempt such means to reduce U.S. self-determination such as Kyoto and the International Criminal Court.

On tariffs, however, I do agree. On that, the U.S. has been as bad as the E.U.

"I don't really care whether or not George Bush's marginal income tax changes are repealed or not"

Not at all? For my family, the federal tax owed this year was nearly $1000 less than previously. That was like getting 2 additional weekly take home paychecks!
Compare the 2002 and 2003 1040 form tax tables.

Finally, perhaps the largest difference: Given what we have learned concerning the possibility that 9/11 was preventable there would seem to be a significant dynamic that the Bush administration missed before 9/11. It appears that "mistakes were made." My claim: What makes the bush administration nervous is the possibility that people will start to make the argument that had Gore been elected, the continuity of administrations would have ensured that terrorism would not have been given the INCONSTANT attention that it received in the Bush administration. The implication of this argument is terrifying for the current administration. If one accepts Clarke's premise that had the administration acted like the Clinton administration in foiling the Millenium Plot directed at LA airport, it would have had a better chance of stopping 9/11 ... (... dot connecting required...)

Kerry is the libertarian choice here and here's why:

Both Bush and Kerry would like to propose expensive budget-busting government programs.

The difference is that with a Republican Congress (which I think is pretty much a given, because in 2004 most of the open Senate seats are in GOP states, and because gerrymandering has given the GOP a permanent House majority) Bush's spending programs will go through, because the Republicans have adopted George W. Bush as their Lord and Savior and will support any of his ideas no matter how loony.

By contrast, Kerry's spending will be treated like Clinton's spending: i.e. gutted. Just as government shrank as a % of GNP the last time we have a D President and a R congress, it will shrink under Kerry.

A vote for Bush is a vote for bigger, more instrusive government in every way: more for Nixonian social programs (i.e. prescription drugs), more for wars - even Social Security "reform" will cost money becuase the goal will be to give today's retirees a free lunch while allowing tomorrow's retirees to stiff the system through privatization. And the deficits mean more spent on payment of the national debt.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for gridlock and thus a vote for less government.

So

Kerry = less government. Period. What part of that do y'all not understand?

So now a president can't even say "...a proud, determined and grateful nation" at the opening of an Olympic games IN America? No...he should make Steve happy and use the occasion to apologize to the world for not getting their permission before he makes decisions in the best interest of the people he works for: Americans. Steve, I'm personally thankful we have a man who realizes that because a few others don't like what we're doing doesn't mean they're right and we're wrong, or that we should do what's in THEIR best interest. Bush works for us, not them. But how thoughtful of you to care so much what France and Germany and a few other ingrates think of us. I live most of the year in Kuwait, working in the private sector, and I can tell you that THESE people love Bush and America. They see "warmongering" a little different than folks like you. The world over here is a safer and better place now, and will be in the future, too. Kuwaitis hear my accent and want to buy my meal or my ticket as an expression of thanks to our country. I get the same thing in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE. I have nothing to apologize for, and it's too bad folks like you are running around worried about what a bunch of liberal, screwy thinking citizens from other countries think of our president or of us.

Now a president can't even say "...a proud, determined and grateful nation" at an Olympic games on our own soil? Man...this is getting too stupid. Steve, if THAT pisses off the international community, than why the hell would you care what they think anyway? Personally, I'm "grateful" we have a man in office that can lead and make decisions based on what is the right thing to do, not what some crackpot, liberal citizens from Western Europe think of us. I live in Kuwait most of the year (working in the private sector). THESE people don't hate us. We just removed a black clous that has been hanging over their heads (and the Saudis heads, and the enitre Gulf, for that matter) for too long. And the whole region is glad to see Iran's nuke programs being kept in check now, thanks to your friend W. And Libya's not going to pull any more crap, either. And because Bush won't deal with a terrorist (Arafat..who Clinton was on a first name basis with), there's now a Prime Minister for Palestine who can be dealt with and, hopefully, trusted. But you go ahead and apologize to the Europeans, Steve - they really care about making the world a better place for your children.

I feel the same way. here's to you. my co-writers i don't think feel quite the same way, but whatever. at the end of the day this all sucks ass.

No brainer. As others have stated there's a war on unlike any war fought previously. It's clear Kerry has a luke warm attitude towards the whole issue of terrorism.

Bush may well not be the ideal leader in the so-called war against terrorism, but he is a damn site better choice than Kerry. No question. No doubt. No decision.

Libertarians are bound to support this "conservative" and make an alliance with all the evangelical fools which support him. Nader? Are you kidding?

Bush is the only possible choice. Having to make a choice from a group of fools is never a happy decision to make. But the best fool who is running for president is clearly Bush, like it or not.

His economic, gay marriage, and other crap just doesn't amount to much of anything of importance. Keep your eyes on the prize, folks, and that's a war we're just getting started with.

[Nathan you are on the thin edge of the comment rules in this item. Have something other than name-calling to offer next time. Otherwise nice job reciting wacko mythology, especially that last part. Are you a Rove plant? - Ed.]

You ponder these things as if we're living in a world that allows for these kinds of ponderables. We're not. I'll give it to you straight: if you don't know and understand the fundamental differences between Bush & Co. and just about anyone else in the world (save those people who are merely extended Bush & Co. "family" members, or, fucking monsters), then you simply can't be helped. That's it. It's not a game, friend; it's not some semantic folly or rhetorical blowhard exercise. It is literally life vs. death. And to really put it simply, try this: the Bushies are death; evreyone else - again, save Bushies in disguise - is life. Does that mean that John Kerry would be an incorruptible, virtuous, pious president? Christ, no. But, for starters, I'd be willing to bet that if he IS elected, he won't skate in via a beautifully choreographed coup d'etat (and not just because he doesn't have a brother who's governor of a state, either). WIth the Bushies, you have real, true evil, in precisely the way that Christians are so apt to describe it. That most of them are so easily fooled by Satan wearing Christian clothes is just one of a million things that are driving people like me, a non-God-believing liberal, crazy. So dude, get with it, and like pronto. And here, a little something to ponder, which you seem to like to do: make Bush Hitler and ponder voting for him EVER. (Sorry, I know the Hitler referece is far from fair to Adolf; all apologies.)

dude, you stole that "sorry, i dozed off and my face hit the keyboard" thing from P.J. O'Rourke

get your own jokes

Megan: for once I agree with your liberal co-workers and disagree with you!

I don't think you're any more "insane" than the average person, but I do believe that Bush versus Kerry is a genuine and clear choice between two very different characters and agendas.

Bush is honest, he avoids waffling. Kerry seems to take professional pride in being a dishonest politician, and he definitely has a waffling temperament.

On foreign policy, Bush is a pre-emptive hawk. Kerry might be forced by events to act like a hawk, but I don't think his heart will ever be really in it. This might not sound like a crucial diference to you, but I need George Washington or Ben Franklin to fight the War on Terror, not a Jimmy Carter in wolf's clothing.

On economics, I think there are also very important differences between the two men. But instead of getting into all that, I'd like to put a question to you. Why are you thinking that Bush is under-committed to rebuilding Iraq?

Angus, it's rather an old gag. I'm sorry if anyone mistakenly thought that I had coined it myself, but I assure you that PJ O'Rourke was also not the first person to think of it . . .

Michael:

"I agree with you about judges and “religious or ethical beliefs”. Do you agree that liberal judges are at least as likely as conservatives to (mis)apply their morals (e.g., Roe, Griswold, the Mass. same-sex marriage decision)?"

If I choose to have an abortion, how does that effect you? If I choose to use birth control, how does that effect you? If I choose to marry the woman I love, how does that effect you? It doesn't, unless your nosy. I'm not saying you HAVE to have an abortion, I'm not saying you HAVE to use birth control, I'm not saying you HAVE to marry a person of the same gender. You just have the option. I think options are one of the things that make the United States great. (insert flag waiving here).

But your comment implies that by allowing me to make the choices I somehow inflict my moral views on you. How? You don't have to use a condom or marry John. I can't (and won't) mandate that just because it is a possibility.

I'm for more options, your are for fewer to coincide with your moral/religious/ethical beliefs.

Uh, Nathan, I don't usually say things this snide in civilized debate, because they tend to poison the follow-up interactions. OTOH, I don't think your view could possibly be poisioned any further, so here goes:

You really need to wipe that rabid froth off your mouth and go find a bucket of lithium.

Comments are Closed.