Bush Landslide 2

I disagree completely. This will be a very close election. Whoever wins won't win by much.

I agree with Mark. I'm a Bush supporter but I'm actually on blog-record predicting a Kerry win.

If Bush actually wins by a landslide I'll call you a genius. But I think Bush is not going to win, or if he does it will be very, very close. I think any other conjecture (no offense intended) is just wishful thinking.

I hope I'm wrong

I'm a Kerry supporter, for no other reason than I refuse to vote for any candidate that isn't socially liberal. I'm also offended by Bush's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Show me a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican... and I'll vote for him! Such a Republican probably doesn't exist.

Having said that, I predict a Bush victory.. albeit by a small margin. The important thing to me is the exercising of my vote. The team I voted for may not win, but I'll always be comforted by the fact that they at least didn't get MY vote.

FWIW, I'm with Michael on predicting a Bush landslide.

I hear that in political polling people will tend to view someone more favorably the less they know about him. There were some polls about seven months ago that showed an un-named Democrat almost beating Bush. The trick was, when you offer someone an un-named Democrat, they are free to construct their very favorite hypothetical Democrat. When you force them to consider actual specific candidates, they are much less interested, because a real person can never be as appealing as one you can imagine for yourself.

Bush may not be wildly popular, but Kerry is an empty suit. He's a boring speaker, an out-of-touch plutocrat, and he's fundamentally without core beliefs.

The Democrats themselves admit that they're going to focus their convention on introducing him to the American public. What has he been doing for the past eight to ten months in the primary? He has been bathing in favorable press coverage and spending tons of his wife's money, yet people don't feel that they know who he is. That's because there's nobody there.

Mark: Being socially liberal is more important than the War on Terror? That's... odd.

BB: Kerry and Edwards will get trounced in the debates, for one thing, among many. And guys, don't forget that Bill and Hillary are working behind the scenes to ensure that Bush wins... that's gotta count for something. Anyway, I just hope you're all very gracious losers when my prediction becomes reality.

MW: I don't think that putting social liberalism first is really that odd here. The reason being is that I don't think this country NEEDS Dubya in the Oval Office to effectively fight the war on terrorism. I don't think that a Democratic president would handle things in a way that puts us more at risk than we're at now.

Everyone in the administration says that we should go about our regular daily lives... but that they cannot say for certain that there won't be another terror attack. I do believe that the administration is doing everything it can.

Guess what? I think the above paragraph would be true with a Democratic president as well.

So yes, social liberalism is more important to me as a vote-deciding factor because I don't believe that Kerry would do a worse job fighting terrorism.

BB: I'd like to see your proof that Kerry is without core beliefs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mark--I've always wondered what socially liberal/fiscal conservative meant. Social liberalism usually involves lots of government spending (except on defense) and control over just about everything, while fiscal conservatism is focused on limiting government spending. How are the two resolved? It seems to me that, for a SL/FC when ever the two conflict, spending and more government control always wins out (again, except for defense).

Mark--I guess my question is how does SL/FC differ from traditional "tax and spend" liberalism?

What I mean by social liberalism / fiscal conservatism, is liberalism on social policies but conservatism on government spending. It's basically the best of both political parties. It borrows traditional Republican fiscal restraint and combines it with Democratic civil liberties.

Tax-and-spend is rather funny. I was against the latest Omnibus appropriations bill... the $820 billion one... because it has too much pork. John McCain voiced his concerns, but the Republican hegemony ignored his calls for fiscal restraint.

Let me clarify:

Social liberalism / fiscal conservatism is someone who opposes big increases in non-discretionary government spending but also supports gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, pro-choice, etc.

I also agree with MW that this will not be a close election, although it seems very tight right now.

I believe (I hope) that people will become more and more aware of the duality of the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

How can one sucessfully run for any office by voicing their opposition to a particular ideology (abortion) while claiming that their own personal belief will not impact the manner in which they would choose to govern(supports "a women's right to choose")?

The hallmark of John Kerry is: Claim that you agree with a moral belief (pandering to one set of constituents) but explain that you won't vote your conscience because it has no place in governing (pandering to the constituents on the other side.) This is just people pleasing, plain and simple.

If one cannot lead by example, according to their own beliefs, on what foundation is their judgement to be grounded?

With George W, we may not like everything he does, but the man has convictions, and he stands by them. A good leader doesn't flip-flop. Sure, he needs to consider the will of the people. But he also stays the course, is willing to do what he believes is in the best interests of those he is charged to care for, and won't sacrifice his morals and values on the alter of acceptance.

If the voters begin to notice this distinct difference in the 2 major candidates, then this election will be a slam-dunk.

Mark--I am sure many would disagree with your assertion that SL/FC is the best of both parties. Is there anybody you can name who fits the bill? John McCain for example, is Pro-life, doesn't favor gay marriage, and I am pretty sure is not in favor of drug legalization. Hell, even John Kerry claims to be against gay marriage (wink, wink) and drug legalization, does that make him a social conservative? I also take exception with your assertion that social conservatives are somehow against civil liberties. I don't know of many conservatives that want to take away civil liberties, most of us are slow to start creating them willy-nilly with no understanding of the impacts. Gay marriage is a good example of that, there has never been a civil right to marry whoever you want. I for example, could not marry my mother, and am restricted to one marriage partner at a time. In addition, gay marriage has not necessarily had a positive impact on the institution where it has been tried. Regarding abortion, one could argue that while the woman gained a new civil liberty, the unborn person certainly lost one (that whole right to breathe thing).

No, no one comes to mind that fits the bill.

Kerry supports civil unions... which is more than I can say for Dubya. I realize that the US is not quite ready for gay marriage... which is why I'm willing to compromise on the issue. Almost everyone in the government.. in both parties.. opposes the legalization of marijuana. That's a strike against Dubya as much as it is a strike against Kerry.

Don't rush down the slippery slope when you talk about gay marriage, though. Gay marriage isn't a free-for-all where you can marry whoever you want and/or have multiple marriage participants.

Gay marriage is also not intended to necessarily have a positive impact on the institution of marriage... as it does nothing to address existing problems with marriage... but it is not going to make marriage worse simply by allowing two committed gay men or women to marry.

RS: Good points.

Mark: You're wrong in thinking that a Democratic president would have acted the same way Bush has. Look at how Al Gore has gone off the deep end over the past few years. He's said repeatedly that he never would have attacked Afghanistan, which just about everyone now agrees was a good idea. John Kerry voted against attacking Afghanistan. Neither Gore nor Kerry would have gone into Iraq, although Kerry did vote in favor of it before voting to defund the troops.

Just look at how Clinton handled terror through the 90s (by doing nothing) and extend that infinitely into the future. Kerry's foreign policy team is taken straight from the Clintons, including (until recently) Sandy Berger, Clinton's NSC.

You're fooling yourself if you think the Dems will handle the WoT in the same way the Republicans have.

I can understand why, for example, gay marriage is important to you, but I don't get why all gays (who speak out and are politically active) tend to be single-issue voters and put their entire emphasis on gay issues. There must be other things that are important to gays as well, right?

Before 9/11, the Bush administration didn't take terrorism seriously either.

You say Clinton did nothing... well, before 9/11, Dubya didn't do anything either.

However... look at where we are in terms of this WoT. In spite of our attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism is still a big threat. We've weakened Al Qaieda, but all that did was turn them from being a centrally-managed organization to a de-centralized one... that is still very capable of attacking the US in the homeland.

It's a start, to be sure, but no.. I'm not a fool, as you assert. Democrats certainly wouldn't have handled things as Republicans have, but I don't think you or anyone else is in a position to say that how the Democrats would have handled it would necessarily be worse.

As for being a single-issue voter... I can only ask you to put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel if you were told by the government that your relationship.. which is as loyal, monogamous, and true as the best examples of marriage.. isn't worthy of any legal recognition?

Yes, other things are important to gay people. We tend to get angry, though, when we're denied participation in certain things simply because we're homosexual. We didn't choose to be this way. Clearly it would be far easier to be heterosexual... but we can no more deny our feelings and desires than a zebra can change the pattern of its stripes.

Mark--I was not making a "slippery slope" argument in my comments about "gay marriage". I was pointing out that there are all sorts of restrictions on who, what, and how many I can marry. Why is "gay marriage" entitled to special treatment? My mom is a poor, widow women (only partially true, but work with me). If I were allowed to marry her, she would be eligible for all sorts of benefits that I currently enjoy, allowing me to help take care of her. My wife wouldn't mind, since it would obviously not be a sexual relationship and she likes my mom. The main argument for "gay marriage" is that under current law, gay couples are denied certain benefits of marriage (health insurance, tax breaks, etc.). Since marriage has now been reduced to a quest for benefits and not as foundation for providing children with a mother and father, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mom (or my sister, or my rugby team)?

Mark: I said you were fooling yourself, not that you're a fool. I think there's a difference.

And you're wrong about Bush not doing anything to move against terrorism before 9/11. Even Richard Clarke, one of Bush's biggest critics, has said time and again that as soon as Bush took office the focus on terrorism jumped five-fold, and he also wrote that the budget specifically allocated to catching Bin Laden/al Qaeda quintupled. We can't know what the Democrats would have done, but based on what they say and what they've done in the past, we can sure draw some easy conclusions.

As for gay marriage, I think RS is on the mark. And anyway, isn't prosecuting the WoT to the fullest possible extent (which will never eliminate the threat entirely) more important than gay marriage? It's more important than the FMA, even to Republicans, who didn't really push it that hard.

I'm posting a new post above this and I'm curious as to your position on gay marriage.

There's a lot of discussion here, and it all seems to behave as if Bush is a "normal" candidate.

Has no one noticed how much more dangerous the world has become during his term? Does the fact that we have lost so many of our civil liberties not count. This guy and his cronies are the Nazis.

Actually, it may be a bit harsh to compare the tactics of one radical group of fundamentals to a far more dangerous and insidious threat. I apologise. To the Nazis.