Post by DSteiner51I don't care much for Bush but Kerry scares me. Here are some reasons why.
1. He is a Democrat.
2. The Democrats want to remove freedom of speech. The other day one of them
made the comment that Sinclair media better hope that they (the democrats)
don't gain power. Are they going to limit anything not approved by them? On
the radio the other day I heard that California is attempting to pass a hate
law limiting one stating his/her opinion. Haven't checked it out but a
liberal news source wouldn't make something like that up would they?
3.Because of all there liberal legislation we haven't built any power plants or
gas refineries for years yet demand has increased and so has cost. Checked gas
prices recently?
4. How can they force businesses to bring jobs back into this country? Take it
away from the owners and "Nationalize" it?
5. Nationalized medicine. I have some health problems and no way do I want the
government telling the docs or I what is what. The insurance industry is bad
enough.
6. The Democrats want gun control. Why so the people can't fight back? Are
they intending to get so bad that they think that might be a possibility and
want to make it impossible?
7. The Democrats have their liberal judges ruling that laws are
unconstitutional to force their morals etc. on the masses. I can't find
anything in the constitution about many of their so called "unconstitutional"
rulings.
8. The Democrats care nothing for the constitution of the United States but try
to impose portions of the Soviet Union constitution on us here. Example,
nowhere in the US constitution does it mention separation of church and state.
Soviet Union constitution does.
The list goes on and on but since I'm a slow typer I'll stop there. It is not
the man, Kerry, that I fear so much, it is the party leadership. They look way
too Marxist, Communist from the '50's and '60's. Many democrats I know think
that the party is the same as has been and not paying attention to what is
really going on.
DSteiner
You may find this article from today's Opinion Journal to be especially
relevant:
Change Is Inevitably Not Popular
Why many Americans hesitate to embrace the Bush revolution.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, October 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
If the people of the United States hand him victory in the 2004 election, George
W. Bush could emerge as the Deng Xiaoping of American politics. Mr. Bush would
become the leader who sent his people forward into a world both uncertain and
inevitable.
Deng, who died in 1997, was the former Communist Chinese revolutionary who
recognized in the 1980s that the moment had come for China to break from an
irrelevant status quo, which had determined economic policy for the entire
postwar period. Led by Deng, China changed its economic policies to make them
appropriate to the world as it existed, not as China wished the world would be.
China flourished. And it is not alone.
India the past five years has similarly broken with its longtime statist past.
Brazil is attempting a similar transformation. All three are huge countries in
the process of rapidly creating a smart, globally relevant business class. This
country's biggest problem isn't "Halliburton" but the realization, just sinking
in, that internal U.S. labor costs are being set by a suddenly thriving, truly
global marketplace. This is the real cause of the famous "middle-class squeeze,"
and it's a force more powerful than any one person sitting in the Oval Office.
After three presidential debates, it is clear that George Bush is asking the
American people to make a similar, abrupt break with the comforts of the
political past. Proposals such as Social Security privatization or individually
run health-savings accounts are not being offered as just an intriguing "policy"
alternative. These ideas are an historic necessity to surviving in the world
economy as it exists today.
Intellectually, the case for making the leap is compelling. Emotionally, the way
forward is less obvious. Most Americans have already adjusted to the disturbing
realities of Iraq and of waging--and leading--a war on global terror. But it's
quite a lot to ask them in the same election to step away from 50 or more years
of federally guaranteed social protection. That would have been large without
Iraq and terror.
The Kerry campaign is riding on the belief that the American electorate, at the
margins in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, isn't ready to make the
break. And they may be right. That to me is the meaning of the relentlessly
close poll results that persist in this election. John Kerry is a fundamentally
weak presidential candidate, but about half the electorate is uncertain whether
it is able to sign up for all the risk and uncertainty implicit in the next Bush
presidency.
The choice in the 2004 election is about much more than merely aligning oneself
with this or that party. Politics alone, and certainly not campaign politics,
rarely alters the social or economic course of this country. More often it is an
event that "changes everything."
Back in the 1920s, Republicans won presidential elections with whopping 60%
majorities. Calvin Coolidge presided over an economy growing at nearly 5%
annually. A nation tied to business success was working. The Depression changed
everything.
With the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt reset the economic philosophy of the
United States, and the nation validated it by giving him nearly 61% of the
popular vote in 1936. Then World War II changed everything.
Historians may argue whether war demand rather than Roosevelt's economic
policies rescued a depressed U.S. economy. What is undeniable is that from 1930
to nearly 1950, the American electorate experienced massive blows to its sense
of personal and economic security. It is hardly a surprise that in the postwar
years, the system of unprecedentedly broad federal economic presence and
protection, created by Democrats, lived on, no matter the size of Gen.
Eisenhower's large electoral majorities for the GOP.
It would now take a force much stronger than the normal process of American
politics to change the nation's political economics. Despite periodic displays
of strength by both parties (the two-term presidencies of Reagan and Clinton)
our politics has invariably reverted to a steady-state stand-off. Since and
including 1960, the popular vote in presidential elections has split nearly
50-50 in 1968, 1976, 1980 and 2000. It remains so today.
The belief that September 11 changed everything is false. The support
accumulated by Mr. Bush in the immediate aftermath, realized with historic GOP
gains in the 2002 elections, has receded. Self-identified partisanship informs
most issues again, surely stoked by Iraq.
Alas, this doesn't alter the reality that the economic trains of China, India
and Brazil have left the station. John Kerry's comments on Social Security
Wednesday evening ("I will not privatize it") and his federally led health-care
proposal makes clear that he expects the electorate to put off responding to
this irreversible global reality for another four years. George Bush wants the
big decision made in three weeks.
The Ownership Society is the appropriate, 21st century replacement to the New
Deal. It's about making it possible for the economy to turn on a dime, not once
a decade. The bad news is that George Bush didn't bother to bring up the idea
until a few weeks ago, in his convention speech.
Neither Mr. Bush, two anonymous Treasury secretaries nor anyone else in this
administration has spent significant public time the past four years preparing
American voters to make a change that I'm certain most of them know has to come.
All those lunch-bucket Democrats carting DVD recorders out of Wal-Mart know
those prices weren't delivered by the tooth fairy, or by a factory on the other
side of town.
Bill Clinton understood these realities, as shown in his trade policies. But
Bill Clinton never really changed his party; he never prepared the party to
transition out of its New Deal mindset. With John Kerry, the Democratic policy
stone has rolled a long way downhill.
Too bad. Amid war, terror and global economic upheaval, this election is a tough
and too-sudden call for many voters. My guess is that the American electorate
knows full well that the world is changing, and that come November 2, will
decide the moment is now to change with it.
-----------------------
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His
column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
--
Carl A. in FL
Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm