What the heck does the W stand for? Walker (as in G. Herbert Walker B., ex-pres.)? Washington (that would be a laugh)? I have looked everywhere online, and I can't find the answer to this. Even his website doesn't say. Thanks in advance, people!

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Answers

Wannabe (as in I wannabe your president);-)

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I think it is Walker. I'm Canadian, so I really have no clue, but I see from this page that his father's name is George Herbert Walker Bush, so I am assuming it is probably that.

Hey, it's a guess, eh?

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

It is Walker. I can't find anything to back me up, but I'm fairly certain.

His website has gotten better if you haven't been there recently. Someone *finally* took over - he was in serious need of help. Haven't checked out the content, but at the very least it LOOKS better than it did previously. www.georgewbush.com

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Better yet:

georgybush.com

You may not find out what George's W stands for, but the music is wonderfully funny.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I heard on the radio today that the latest Zagby (sp?) Poll had Bush up 16 points over Gore. That is a 5 point rise during the RNC. One can expect Gore to get a similar bump during the DNC.

I think the W may stand for "Winner".

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

If he's elected, it will stand for "Where can I live while he's in office?"

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

or "Why oh why did this happen?"

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

W stands for "wha?"

I find that one of the first things coming out of my mouth in criticizing Dubya is "the man's just a frickin' moron- that's it!"

I try to move beyond that, to something more articulate, but I can't. It's not that I think we need a brainiac in the White House- in 1992, I thought Bush Sr. was sharper than Clinton- but Clinton had at least a minimal level of understanding of the big picture, and was clearly brilliant when it came to leading- which is what the President does.

It's more like Dubya is being danced on strings by handlers, and as long as he doesn't try to bust a move on his own, everyone is happy to support him- they just want a GOP'er in the White House again.

That said, Dubya does have some leading/PR smarts- the "inclusive" appearance of this convention is largely due to him. While I think it's a pathetically transparent show, I guarantee it's benefitting him. Big Time.

~

I just can't wait till the debates. Gore's no shining star, but lord he's gonna whup up on Jr.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I don't think he's dancing on a string from handlers... maybe that's because I'm from Texas and have had more long-term contact with his governing over the years...

He knows what he doesn't know and surrounds himself with people who DO, in fact, know. Brainiac is not - he's no Rhodes Scholar. But, he puts people like Condeleeza Rice in a role to advise him. She is by no means a "handler," but the woman knows her stuff. He, in turn, is content to let her do what she does best... Analyze foreign policy.

Who are the "handlers" you refer to?

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Two more points:

1. Isn't one of the signs of a good leader one who delegates?
2. In a democracy, by the "people" (not person), wouldn't you want someone who has many people around them, rather than ONE person who thinks HE has ALL the answers?

Just ideas...

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Yes, as long as that one person is intelligent enough on his own to be able to handle the myriad details of running the country, and is able to run the country in such a way that the whole thing doesn't go skidding into a ditch after six months.

But as long as that's a given, then yes.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I think George Dubya is one of the good guys. I don't know what on earth he has done to make him qualified to be president, but I do think he's one of the good guys. And I agree re: it being most important to know how to delegate, and to surround oneself with good people.

Al Gore? I'm not at all so sure. I'm one of those people who was so disgusted by Clinton that I find it difficult to stomach those who stood by him. If Bradley had won the nomination, I'd probably be voting Democrat.

But he didn't and I won't.

As for me and my house, we will vote Nader.

Again.

Pooks in Texas

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

It stands for wimp. Weren't you here when his dad was president? Or maybe woos (sp?) so as not to be derivative. Take your pick.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I just this minute heard Dan Rather call him George Walker Bush.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

If either is a wimp, then it is Dad Bush – he's the one who called George Dubya to fire one of his Chief of Staff people (I forget who...) Dad didn't want to do it, so it fell on son.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I like my neighbor George Walker Bush. What you see is what you get. He doesn't need anyone to tell him how to be a compassionate alpha male.

He graduated from Yale (gpa about the same as Gore's Mr. Bush suceeded as an Air Guard Fighter Pilot and in the Harvard MBA program (Vice President Gore dropped out of both law school and seminary).

He has significant private sector experience. His kids went to public schools.

Perhaps his greatest asset is the tendency of his opponents to underestimate him. Ann Richards was a very popular Governer here, even I voted for her. Everything that is being said about G.W. now was said then. He was called a lightweight and was said to be out-of- touch. He blew Ann out of the saddle in a landslide, attracting large numbers of women and minority voters.

G.W. walks the bi-partisan walk. He plays well with Democrats. In the last session of our legislature just about all his bills passed both the Democrat controlled Texas house and the Republican controlled Senate.

His "yes" means "yes", and his "no" means "no".

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

The "W" in "George W. Bush" means, if he wins, "We're all screwed!"

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

The "W" in "George W. Bush" means, if he wins, "We're all screwed!"

I curious as to why you think that. What terrible things do you think will happen? Taxes cut? Fewer regulations? More control over your retirement funds? Reduced partisanship in congress? Less power for trial lawyers? Greater local control of education?

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

The "W" in "George W. Bush" stands for "What the hell did American's do to deserve two Bush presidents in one lifetime?" Bah. I'm moving to Canada if he becomes President.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I curious as to why you think that. What terrible things do you think will happen? Taxes cut? Fewer regulations? More control over your retirement funds? Reduced partisanship in congress? Less power for trial lawyers? Greater local control of education?

Jim, I know this question wasn't presented to me but I wanted to answer it to put a little information behind the first post I made in this topic. This isn't directed *at* you, or anyone else for that matter. :o)

I have a lot against most republicans. I find their tactics to not be in the best interest for the country as a whole and their attitudes are often generalized and stuffy. Republican candidates seem to deligate more of their duties to other political representatives.

Clinton made a lot of changes with the country. These changes all needed to be made to better the country as a whole. Republican Presidents tend to not make as many necessary changes or do anything that would rock the boat. Clinton wasn't afraid to make those changes even though they weren't popular with a lot of people.

Yes, Clinton and other democratic presidents did have their faults, but that wasn't because of their Democratic/Republican status as a President. It was because each of them made their own individual mistakes, and no matter which political side of the fence a person is sitting on, mistakes will be made. Clinton made enough mistakes for the next fifty presidents.

To define Bush's problems: He is cocky. He has an attitude. I don't think that when he does decide to make some kind of change with the country, that he will keep the country's best interest in mind. He plays mind games with the media. He will deligate too much on others that talk with their heads up their asses.

One final point: George Bush, Senior. Need I say anymore? This man made an international idiot of himself on so-so-so many occasions and we don't need that kind of president representing our country once again.

Bush won't follow through with those promises he made about funding more schools, giving more tax cuts, giving us more control over our retirement funds, etc. This is another flaw of the Bush: broken promises.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

The "W" in "George W. Bush" stands for "What the hell did American's do to deserve two Bush presidents in one lifetime?" Bah. I'm moving to Canada if he becomes President.

it is a pity there isn't another Reagan! plus another Thatcher for england. that would be a perfect combination for the start of the new millenium.

but, at least electing bush will be a first step to ending the wishy washy clinton reign in world politics.

and just remember, there is also Jeb Bush. after 8 years of George W there could be 8 years of Jeb!

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Jim Howard said it EXACTLY right... Bush plays VERY well with others. In fact, there is at least 1 high ranking Democrat in Texas supporting Gov. Bush. He's long been noted here for making good overatures to Democrats - even going so far as having breakfasts for them at the Governor's mansion to promote a non-partisan atmosphere. LONG before he was running for President.

And he has not a single problem telling you what you don't want to hear. He calls a spade a spade. I'd rather that any day than someone blowing wind up my skirt.

His people skills are wonderful.

If only he gave good speeches. I saw him speak about a year ago and was embarrassed for him.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I(sic)curious as to why you think that. What terrible things do you think will happen? Taxes cut? Fewer regulations? More control over your retirement funds? Reduced partisanship in congress? Less power for trial lawyers? Greater local control of education?

Well, for beginners, George W. Bush has not exactly voiced his overwhelming desire to appoint Supreme Court Justices who are pro-Roe v. Wade and pro-Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Also, the fact that the man spoke at Bob Jones University speaks volumes about his attitudes towards the rights of minorities.

His position on the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable.

And this is an interesting read.

Hope that answers your queries.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

One final point: George Bush, Senior. Need I say anymore? This man made an international idiot of himself on so-so-so many occasions and we don't need that kind of president representing our country once again.

What did Sr. Bush do to make an idiot of himself? He was an U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and Chief China liason. He was director of the CIA. You don't these positions by habitually making an ass of yourself. You also don't get suddenly socially inept by becoming President.

Please, please, please tell me how he make an idiot of himself. Because he had a stomach virus and threw up at a foreign state dinner? Could happen to anyone.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Meghan, your comment is very vague and void of facts. I fully expect that G.W. will in fact deliver on his promises, just as he has done as governer. There is certainly nothing in G.W.'s record or your answer to indicate otherwise.

Why wouldn't President G.W. Bush go ahead with his modest plan to allow us to place 2% of our FICA tax into a self-directed account? Al Gore is just about the only person in the country who can't see the logic of this very modest and reasonable proposal. It will pass Congress with overwhelming majorities from both parties.

No President since FDR has been held in higher esteme by the international community than President G. H. Bush. He did a masterful job of managing international affairs. He got Israel and Syria on the same team!

Candidate Clinton critized him for spending too much time on forgion travel, yet President Clinton has traveled more than any two prior Presidents with nothing to show for it except a few bombed out drug factories.

There was a governer who promised a tax cut a few years ago, but after three weeks in office President Clinton decided that a tax cut was too hard to do, and raised taxes instead.

G.W. Bush reduced property taxes here in Texas, just as he said he would, and just as he will do as President.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

He's antiabortion and against gay rights, that alone is enough for me to vote for someone else in November.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

No President since FDR has been held in higher esteme(sic)by the international community than President G. H. Bush.

Funny, this from the fellow who called Meghan's commentary "vague and (de)void of facts." Say, could you please provide us with some facts on this one? I don't remember reading a press release from the International Esteem Committee titled, "George H. W. Bush Beats FDR On Esteem-O-Meter"

===

President Clinton has traveled more than any two prior Presidents with nothing to show for it except a few bombed out drug factories.

Gosh, I guess you don't remember Clinton negotiating the Wye River Accords, brokering the Good Friday Peace Accord (Northern Ireland) or helping restore democracy in Haiti.

But more to the point, I'm failing to understand what Clinton's travelling has to do with George W. Bush running for office. (Of course, your logic may simply be you think George W. Bush will be a good president because you think his daddy was a good president.)

===

There was a governer(sic)who promised a tax cut a few years ago, but after three weeks in office President Clinton decided that a tax cut was too hard to do, and raised taxes instead.

Apparently you don't remember Clinton's tax cut for working families (expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit).

===

G.W. Bush reduced property taxes here in Texas, just as he said he would, and just as he will do as President.

I wasn't aware the President had the power to reduce property taxes in Texas, but hey, I could be wrong.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I, too, thought Meghan's comments were very vague. Meghan please be specific in your comments about Clinton.

I believe Bush/Cheney will make a better team for this country than Gore/? will. Bush has a track record for actually doing something for 'the children' than just talking about it.

For example, under Bush Texas schools have improved dramatically. Texas is no longer dumbing down their tests and the children are scoring higher in these tests. Teachers are being held accountable by having to take competency tests.

He lowered taxes in Texas.

He believe Americans should keep more of their hard earned money and he believes in less government.

He believes we need to invest more in our military and build it back up.

He believes we must restore our national security and take it seriously. (Who knows what secrets have been virtually handed over to other countries.)

He believes in actually bringing us all together instead of creating class/race envy.

He believes in actually saving social security instead of just talking about it.

He believes in restoring dignity to the office of President.

While no one is perfect, I believe he is the best candidate for this country.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

As to what Bush will do if he gets in office, I heard Jerry Falwell (who appeared to be hanging out in the wings of the convention) say Bush knows he needs appeal to moderates and Independents. and that we don't want to force him to say something that will hurt his electability.

So, any middle of the road appeal, may just be a false front until he gets elected.

And his Dad was famous (or infamous) for saying "Read my lips." so maybe like father like son as far as promises.

I also got a kick out of Cheney being questioned by Sam Donaldson on relating to Bush's possible cocaine use. Cheney dodged the question whether a man that used cocaine should be President. So, I guess that covers his position should such a fact ever be revealed about Bush (who never answered the question) Cheney's answer was wimpy for such a staunch conservative though, and he has zero room to criticize Clinton/Gore about moral judgment of any kind.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

"He (George W. Bush) believes in less government."

I always get a huge kick out of people who say we need/they believe in "less government" and then support candidates who believe the government should be involved in a woman's decision to have an abortion.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

"He (George W. Bush) believes in actually bringing us all together instead of creating class/race envy."

Really? Did he start wanting to "bring us all together instead of creating class/race envy" before or after his speech at Bob Jones University?

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Why don't we let Dubya speak for himself:

"Actually, Ithis may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking aboutwhen I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."

"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read  I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do."On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000

Bush: "First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day. That's diecisiis de Septiembre, and..." Matthews: "What's that in English?" Bush: "Fifteenth of September." (Diecisiis de Septiembre = Sept. 16) Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000

"This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep the peace. That's what we were certain of. ... You see, even though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. We're certain that even though the 'evil empire' may have passed, evil still remains. We're certain there are people that can't stand what America stands for. ... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this, too: I'm certain to maintain the peace, we better have a military of high morale, and I'm certain that under this administration, morale in the military is dangerously low."Albuquerque, N.M., the Washington Post, May 31, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." (May 5 2000, reported by Reuters)

"Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads."Fund-raising letter from George W. Bush, quoted in the Washington Post, March 24, 2000

For more Bushisms, check here. Meanwhile, I'm going to pick myself up off the floor - once the fits of laughter subside, that is. My God, this man is even more hysterical than Mr. Potatoe!

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

My God, this man is even more hysterical than Mr. Potatoe! -- Stijn de Jong.

Stijn,

Funny you should say that. I think Gore is clearly the more comical of the two (Bush/Gore).

Do you remember Gore going through the Hermitage with Clinton and while studying some busts within a room ask "And just who are these people here"? One can hear the tour guide going "Well, here is George Washington, the first President of the United States, and here is Thomas Jefferson."

Or the time he swore Love Story was based on his and Tipper's life?

Or the Time he stated he invented the Internet?

Or all the illegal fundraisers he orchestrated?

Or the funds he took from the ChiComs?

Or the illegal use of Federal facilities to campaign for contributions?

And as for your Dubya name calling, the person Bush will defeat in this next election is a reported former very heavy abuser of drugs on a much worse level than any has ever accused Bush of. I don't really care a bunch if people USE to do drugs, but I can't stand to see Bush being the only one labeled a former drug user while everyone turns a blind eye to his former addict opponent.

I think people see what they want to see. And I think you just don't like conservatives. Period. I think I remember reading from one of your posts once that you do not live in the U.S. I think that is great.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I agree with Suzy- I won't be voting for Bush because of his stance on abortion and gay rights.

Hey, Meghan- you gonna to need a roommate if you have to run for the border in November?

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

If you're rooting for Nader, sign the petition at http://green.votenader.org/cgi-bin/petition-sigs.cgi to let Nader into the Presidential debates.

How come only the rich kids get to be in the debates?

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I think W. stands for Walker. But if he wins, it will stand for "Welcome to Canada", because we'll put out the welcome mat for refugees from right-wing tyranny.

I watched Cheney's speech for a while last night. Loved his smug sneer. Thought the speech was better when Al Gore gave it at the Democratic Convention in New York 8 years ago, thought.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I too would love to see Nader in the debates.

It's time to shake up this 2 party system. They like being the only game in town.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Am I the only one that sees Bush and Gore as being two sides of the same despicable coin? They should pick each other as running mates. Winner takes the top position, the loser gets the veep spot. The same people stand to benefit either way. And unless you are extremely wealthy, you are probably not one of those people.

I am finding Nader's candidacy more and more attractive. And I don't think the "you're just wasting your vote" argument holds any water. If more people were willing to vote what their conscience told them rather than what the jabbering head on their television instructed them, things might be very very different in this country...

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Indeed. I've been a member of the Green Party since about 1994, not because I agree with every issue on their platform -- I don't -- but because I don't like the two party system, and I don't want to throw away my vote by participating as one of the Republicrat sheep. If you happen to legitimately agree wtih everything the Democrats or the Republicans stand for, more power to you and have fun in the two party system. But I assume then that your agreement includes back end deals, hideous abuse of campaign funding, and general corruption, because that's part of the package.

Neither of the major party candidates strikes me as terribly intelligent, and my gut reaction tells me that they are both overprivileged, double-dealing swine. I'm not exactly ga-ga over Nader, either, but I can vote for him without holding my nose or feeling dirty. I voted for him last time around and I'll do so this time, as well. And I won't hate myself in the morning, not even if Dubya wins.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Anybody watch Cheney speak last night? Anybody else find it interesting that one of the few voters against Headstart was talking about his commitment to education, especially minority education?

And as for the drug use, the last time I checked cocaine was considered a more "serious" drug than marijuana.

It astonishes me that moderates are willing to forget about all the far right statements Dubya made to get the nomination. The man spoke at Bob Jones college, people. Either he agrees with their policies, or he's willing to condone them to get votes. Either way, he's lost mine.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I'm one of those people who is mostly so far to the left I actually have a Nation credit card. The only thing that keeps me from completely agreeing with Beth is that if George Bush wins, he'll most likely put Supreme Court Justices on the bench who would make decisions that would allow states to outlaw abortion, potentially even in cases of rape or incest.

I have become a one issue voter at this point. I definitely agree that both parties are pretty much the same except on this issue and on gun control. So I can't bear to throw my vote away. I'm probably going to vote for Gore, though I voted for Nader last time. I actually prefer Gore to Clinton. I like politicians who are wooden, frankly. I hate smarmy people.

I have to say, I think the democrats are royally screwing up. And I support third parties. But I think Shrub could do some serious damage playing with his father's toys.

Beth, do you have an abortion topic? heh heh! oh, the Catholics might invade and we wouldn't want that.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I was referring to the Greenspun message board for Catholics, not the fact that members of the Catholic faith are on this message board. I apologize if my feeble attempt at a joke offended anyone. Really.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Jen, I've seen the Greenspun Catholicism board. I don't think those people are very representative of the faith; at least, they don't have much in common with Catholics I've known. And yes, there is an abortion topic around here somewhere; check under politics.

As far as GWB and abortion: I don't care. Well, it's not that I don't care, exactly, but I absolutely refuse to be a one-issue voter. I think one-issue voting is how our two party system stays in place, and for a long time, abortion has been that one issue. I will not play that game.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I'm with Jen on the Supreme Court justices. I'm under the impression the next president will likely appoint seveal, and much as I dislike a lot of things about Gore, I feel more comfortable with him controlling the nominations than Bush. It worries me that justices (or potential justices) take stances pro or con issues. I was under the (naive?) impression that their job was to interpret the constitution, not insert their own beliefs.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I should have went into more detail with the above statements. It was late last night (thank goodness I am not running for president. I would do a worse job than Bush or Clinton could ever dream of. *Laughs*).

To define the statement I made about Clinton's moves to better the country:

He balanced out the national debt during his two terms, even though he was "busy" doing other things with interns. He has strengthened the economy and has made it possible for millions of people to find new jobs and support their families. He has switched the rules around on Welfare, making it so a single parent (either mother or father, doesn't matter) cannot ride the system while they sit at home on their able butts and do nothing while the working Americans support their ten kids. Making changes to the health care system to allow more people to get health benefits (even though HMO's suck, people still get medical care). He allocated money for charity. Specifically: the Juvenile Diabetes Association. He donated millions of dollars to this association. I honestly can't see Bush doing something that constructive with extra federal funding. He'd throw it to the NRA or something equally stupid.

To define Clinton's faults during his presidency:

Monica Lewinsky. I think it is fine that he had sexual relations with this woman in the oral office -- uh, oval office -- but I don't appreciate the fact that he lied to everyone when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He breached his integrity with that one statement and that one mistake. Once integrity has been breached, it can never be mended. I still feel that, even though he made those mistakes, the good outweighed the bad. I can't think of anything else that he has done that I have disagreed with, but I am sure not everything he has done has been saintly.

About George Bush Sr., making an idiot of himself:

The incident with the stomach virus comes to mind, but that isn't the main issue that sticks in my mind. Things like that can happen to anyone, and I honestly felt bad for him when that happened. I don't like how Bush screwed up the economy and put the country into further debt with his mismanagement. He avoided handling things himself; he sent Mr. Potato Head (a.k.a. Dan Quale) to do several duties. Pardon me for not getting into the duties here, there are too many to list.

As for George "W" Bush:

His choice for vice president, and almost positively himself as well, are for the NRA. Both of them are promoting guns and their effects. He wants everyone to be able to have a firearm in their house. Damn the people who are killed because of guns. Damn the kids who lose their precious lives because of guns. Damn the police that are killed by violent acts with guns. He is arrogant, he avoids answering questions if the answers would make him look bad. He lives in a fantasy world, (i.e., "read my lips. I'll be a great American President!")

I hope this is a little more detailed for everyone. I'm not used to debating politics with anyone because it has never really been an issue with me, but Bush really pushes my buttons. For the record, the above is just how I feel. I mean no harm to anyone, no hurt or hard feelings and no insults were meant to anyone with a different opinion. I realize I am in the minority with how I feel about Bush, but I did want to be truthful and honest in how I felt. Thanks for understanding.



-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I realize I am in the minority with how I feel about Bush...

God, I hope you're not.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

"Teachers are being held accountable by having to take competency tests."

Nope, teachers in Texas get a certificate for life... we don't have to retest...

"He lowered taxes in Texas."

We dont pay state taxes and our sales taxes have gone upand we were suppose to have our lottery money feed into the educations system do you think we have seen that happen? Hell no!

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

"I am finding Nader's candidacy more and more attractive. And I don't think the "you're just wasting your vote" argument holds any water."

Make that two votes for Nader... I'm with you Rob

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I'm not 100% positive yet, because I still need to do more research, but I'm pretty sure I'll also be voting for Nader this year. Bush's anti-gay pro-big-business stance frightens me, and Gore seems to be a little too much of a slimy politician.

I actually wrote an entire entry about why the "you're throwing your vote away" argument doesn't hold water.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I certainly wouldn't say voting for the best candidate is "throwing your vote away", but I still won't do it. I'm much more negative on Bush than I am positive on anybody. I'm casting my vote against him, and the most effective vote against Bush is for Gore. (I'm sorry, but as much as I like him, and think he would be a great president, Ralph is not going to win, at least not this year.)

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Well as a Canadian I probably should keep out of it, but this was widely reported here and I don't know whether it was reported at all in the US:

A few months ago, the Canadian satirical news program This Hour Has 22 Minutes did a piece on their Talking to Americans segment where they said: "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine has said he has come out in support of you winning the Republican nomination. How does this make you feel?" and Dubya was all, "Oh, that's fabulous." when he should have been saying, "what head of state would endorse an unelected candidate, that's crazy" and "Prime Minister Who?" (Poutine, by the way, is a French-Canadian heart-stopping dish of French fries covered with gravy and cheese curds.) As an excuse for their candidate not catching that this was a joke, one of his aides said that he was confused between Jean Chretien and Vladimir Putin. If that's actually true, and not the aide making something up on the spot, it's horrifying.

By the way, I would have thought the most popular president since FDR would be Kennedy.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Wow! Lots of personal hot buttons to cover....

First off, I woudn't consider Nader to be much of a "Man of the People", considering his *personal* net worth is in the millions. He made a lot of scratch fear-mongering; and considering how out of touch he is, I would be very afraid if he got any serious support. The very idea that the UAW would flirt with endorsing somebody who is so anti-auto industry (the A in UAW, after all...) illustrates how out-of-touch a "protest vote" movement can be.

Second; the first and only criterion for selecting a new Supreme Court Justice, as I see it, is how strict of a constructionist they are; not how they feel about a particular litimus test issue. I say this to "true believers" on both sides of hot-button issues like Roe v. Wade (by the way, who was Wade, anyway?) and gun control.

Third; the Clinton tax cuts were a complete joke. The whole idea of a "middle class tax cut" rings pretty hollow when you define the top end of middle class at around $70,000 agi. The whole tax system is unfair; but when the President vetos bills that would iron out obivious inequities (marriage penalty, inheritence tax) based on this insane notion of what is middle class and isn't; well, don't say he did much "tax cutting".

Fourth; Cheney did come out and say that had he the opportunity to do it over, he would have voted differently on a few issues. It is possible, after all, to take a strict Fedralist view and believe that Preschool education is still something best left up to the states.

Lastly; So W. spoke at Bob Jones University. If memory serves me right; didn't he speak about the need for tolerance there? Preaching to the choir is a waste of time for the preacher and the choir; so why talk about the need for tolerance to the tolerant?

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Much as I'd prefer Nader to either Gore or Bush, a vote for him is half a vote for Bush. Bad deal.

There are plenty of issues that swing me toward Gore over Bush: abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. etc. etc. But perhaps most important is religion.

Both men claim to be deeply religious. But Gore not only knows much more about his religion (he may have dropped out of seminary, but he learned a great deal there, and he wasn't particularly interested in a degree), but more importantly, seems to know a great deal more about keeping his religion out of his policy decisions.

I'm concerned about Gore weakening the wall of separation with federal funds for "faith-based programs," as he has discussed. But I fully expect GW to try to dynamite it.

Salon wrote a very nice (if not necessarily unbiased) article about the subject.

-Bill

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I'm with several others on this board that I can't stand the idea of Bush II becoming president. We do NOT need to backtrack on the abortion issue and go back to illegal abortions with dirty equipment in a back alley/using a wire hanger, etc., nor do I agree on the "preach abstinence only" bit he seems to be all for in sex-ed. I don't like this "ok, I'll condescend to meet with a few gay people/let one speak, but I'm gonna discriminate against them like crazy when in office" crap. I can't say I'm worried about our military not having enough weapons of destruction and the like. And Cheney's record is just NASTY.

(And one note here, awhile back I found an article on all of the "Gore lies", and apparently someone took the time to investigate this and found that the media had er, bullshitted it and he hadn't outright said what we heard he did. However, I have no idea where it is now.)

I like the idea of a 3rd party, but I don't think one will really become viable any time soon (i.e. could win). I don't even care enough to find out if Nader really is the best candidate or not (I think that being a politician REQUIRES a person to be sleazy in order to get elected, and he seems to be missing that.), because I can't STAND Bush, more than I care about any other candidate. (I actually don't think Gore's that bad, but still) Like Amanda said, I want to vote for the person most likely to prevent Bush from making it into office. And if that's my goal, voting for Nader won't make it happen. And that's why I consider this wasting my vote if I voted for him.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I woudn't consider Nader to be much of a "Man of the People", considering his *personal* net worth is in the millions.

That old line again? If you know that he's worth so much money, then surely you are also aware that he gives away almost all of it to the various causes he supports and lives on roughly the same amount of money that I do. I keep reading this particular nugget of info from people who should know better.

But wait, the man on TV said...

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

What does the "R" stand for in William "R". Dickson? Hey?

Now that's a question I'd like to know the answer to.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Nader gives most of his yearly *income* away to charitable causes; but he also has a large ammount of money invested away in principle. In summary, he has directly benifited from the various government policies, such as free trade, that he criticizes in his campaign.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Alice said --

"We dont pay state taxes and our sales taxes have gone upand we were suppose to have our lottery money feed into the educations system do you think we have seen that happen? Hell no!"

No, Alice. The Texas Lotto money was NEVER set aside to go for education. In fact, that was very much debated at the time the lottery was created. My understanding (from what was said at the time) was that much of California's educational funding problem was created when it was FIRST decided to let their lottery go directly to education, and so the state legislature cut funding, but LATER when the public support of the lottery fell, there wasn't enough funding for education and the public protested having taxes raised to meet needs ... ?

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

But I am 98% certain that there was never any plan to put all the lotto money in Texas into education. Furthermore, Ann Richards brought in the lottery, so any complaints you have about that would fall back on her, since it hasn't changed substantially since then.

Pooks

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Pooks, you are exactly correct. The Texas Lottery system was proposed and designed by Ann Richards while she was Governer. Bob Bullock helped her a lot with the law itself.

She first proposed a Texas income tax, but after she kept waking up and finding dead horses heads in her bed she settled for the lottery.

Lottery funds were always intended to go into the general fund. For years Mr. Bullock fought the urban legend about the lottery being only for education, but it is a misconception that just won't go away.

Governer Bush did indeed reduce property taxes just as he promised. To be fair the state property taxes aren't that much to begin with. For confirmation just ask Mr. Gore, who has been roasting Mr. Bush all over the country about it, telling lies about the state of our State Budget.

State sales taxes have not increased under Mr. Bush, and we did get a sales tax holiday which is going on this week. Ya'll come and buy your clothes and school supplies here.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I don't know a thing about Texas, but California's education problems did not start with the lottery. California's educational system has a severe funding shortage that can be traced directly back to Proposition 13, passed back in the 70's, which drastically cut property taxes and thus school funding. The lottery was a half-assed and misguided attempt to fix some of that problem, but yes, it has to some extent been an excuse for the Legislature to avoid funding schools.

Not, as I said, that there is enough tax revenue to do so, what with our monster corrections machine and the lasting effects of Prop. 13.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Who cares what the 'W' stands for?! How about what the man himself stands for? I have yet to hear anything worth voting for come out of that man's mouth, except for the gun issue. He's against women having reproductive freedom, and that looses my vote for him. Why would any sane woman vote for him? He's just trying to live up to Daddy's expectations. Please, we already had one Bush in office, we don't need a repeat. Why doesn't he live his own life, instead of riding the coattails of his father? Who cares if Gore stood by Clinton? That's his job. What was he going to do, step down? Whatever. Clinton's personal life was/is none of our damn business. So the man got a little head from a fat nasty ho, big deal. Are all men suddenly saints? Millions of men get it everyday; and not always from their wife. You don't see their mugs on every channel. Let it die. If Bush gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

I think people see what they want to see. And I think you just don't like conservatives. Period. I think I remember reading from one of your posts once that you do not live in the U.S. I think that is great.

I'm sorry, Jarvis, but you completely misunderstood my point. It's not that I don't like conservatives. On the contrary. I love conservatives with all my heart, even though I don't share some of their beliefs. Several of my best friends have a very conservative outlook on life, but that doesn't matter to any of us even in the slightest. No, it's that I don't like politicians in general. No matter what ideology they (claim to) represent. No matter if they're from the U.S., Asia, Africa, Europe or Alpha Centauri. In my book, the world of politics is a freak show which has absolutely nothing to do with the things that really matter in life and I hardly ever look at it for anything else than entertainment purposes. So yes, I do believe that 'Dubya' is a joke, same as I believe that 'Bubba' Clinton and his wooden puppet Al are a joke, same as I believe that Mr. Wim 'Night of the Living Dead' Kok, my own prime minister, is a joke. For your information: the man's a socialist, and no, I didn't vote for him.

I don't exactly remember where I heard the following quote, but as far as I know, it came from an American politician (please correct me if I'm wrong): "I'm a politician. That means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." My sentiments exactly.

On a personal note, if you ever feel like visiting my country, I think that would be great. I'll be happy to show you around, and I'm sure we could agree on a million subjects besides politricks.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

I think that quote was actually from the movie Bullworth. You'd never find a real politician willing to admit to that. But yeah, it pretty much sums up my feelings about politicians, as well.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Let's see....Weak, Waste, wearisome, or maybe that sheep dressed up in Wolve's clothing. Our political system has fallen apart, so my strategy is to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Bush stands for pro-life and anti-gay (what about CHeney's daughter...hellllooo!?) Gore will get my vote this election year...no bells and whistles here!

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Who cares if Gore stood by Clinton? That's his job. What was he going to do, step down? Whatever. Clinton's personal life was/is none of our damn business. So the man got a little head from a fat nasty ho, big deal.

I would have a lot more respect for Gore had he resigned; that's for sure. But don't buy into the misconception that bj-gate was about Clinton getting a little on the side.

While I disagree with the direction of the investigation; they were investigating abuse of power by the president - to cover shady land deals; potential murders (which turned out to be suicide); and the president using the power of his office to quash investigations (sexual harrasment/rape).

Of course, the dumb thing was that Clinton could have just stood up and said "Yep. Monica and I? We did it." and that would have been so much better for him and for the country. After all, Nixon didn't get in trouble for the break-in; he got in trouble for the coverup.

Lastly; there seems to be a common mis-representation in claiming that Bush (and/or the Republican party) is anti-gay. While the social conservatives are pretty much that way; the fiscal conservatives, who find a home in the GOP over issues like goverment regulation and taxation, aren't.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

All I keep thinking is, whom do we want to select Supreme Court justices? In many ways, the real test of a president isn't known until years after they are gone, when particular laws reach the Supreme Court and they decide once and for all what is "right." For that reason, there is no way I can vote for Shrub and his antiabortion, antigay, seemingly anti-human rights platform. I didn't vote for him in Texas and will certainly not do it now.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

While Bush and/or the Republican party may not come right out and scream "We're anti-gay!", they certainly aren't doing much to be pro-gay.

On http://www.rnc.org/2000/2000platform4, the site that details the Republican platform, you can see the following under family matters:

"We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law."

Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but to me this says that the Republicans don't want to recognize same-sex marriages. And they don't want to offer legal protection to someone based on their sexual prefrence. Does that mean killing someone because they are gay should not be considered a hate crime?

That sounds pretty anti-gay to me. It's definitely not supportive of gay issues.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Here's Dan Savage's take on the gay issue. http://www.sfweekly.com/savage/index2.html

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Great link, Jennifer!

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Jim, though the State sales taxes have not increased in your area as a Texan you must know that this differs from city to city. Do not know why they call it State sales tax...Ours have gone up; obviously you are one of the lucky cities. We increased from 7.250% to 8.250% in the last year.

In addition, though we have lower property taxes our school taxes in some areas (my area for instance) are higher than our property taxes.

All right, I will admit I did not do my research on the Lotto and am another victim of an urban legend...

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

"While Bush and/or the Republican party may not come right out and scream "We're anti-gay!", they certainly aren't doing much to be pro- gay."

I think that's a fair statement, Sprite. Most Republicans are neither anti-gay or pro-gay. We just don't care who you sleep with. There are fundlementalist Christians and Muslims who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but even they don't propose laws that would in any way punish gay people. One of the nice things about Republicans is that just because we don't like something, we are unlikely to try and ban it. There is a much stronger libertarian wing in the Republican party than the Democrats.

Most of us Republicans don't like the balkanization of American that our Democrat friends seem intent on, so gays aren't going to get quotas from a Republican administration. If G.W. gets elected the gays can expect the government to pretty much leave them alone. There won't be any "anti-gay" laws passed.

As far as hate crime laws go, refer to the pre-existing thread on this subject. We do have this quaint document called "The Constitution" which requires that all laws apply equally to all people. Most Republicans just want serious punishment dealt out for serious crimes, no matter what victim groups might be involved. "Thought crimes" worry our Democrat friends, but Republicans aren't comfortable punishing thought.

Matt mentioned the death penalty as a reason to vote against G.W. This is fair. If you truly oppose the death penalty then G.W. isn't your man. To be fair, Gore isn't your man either, since he agrees with Bush on this subject. I read yesterday that the federal government hasn't performed an execution for 37 years, so it's not a real issue in the Presidential election in any case.

A lot of you mentioned abortion. If you really believe as Mr. Gore curently does that there should be no limits on abortion, and that they should be publicly funded, then you ought to vote for Gore or Nader. But please don't panic if Bush wins.

G.W. said last night that this is an issue that sincere people can disagree on, and he said what he'd actually try and do. He wants to ban the heinous partial birth procedure, which to many of us is indistinguishable from murder. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortions. He will appoint judges who are strict constructionists, which means that they may well not find any right to an abortion in the constitution, since there isn't one there. Under the 10th Amendment, this would mean that abortion would be left to the states where it belongs. So under Bush we may see some limits on late term abortions and on government funding for abortions, but other than that there won't be much real change from the status quo.

Bush also said he'd devise a system that made health insurance available to all. I was glad to hear that, it's long overdue. Refer to my posts in the health insurance thread for details of the Republican approach to this problem.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Alice, I live in Austin, Texas's liberal enclave. Our sales and property taxes have gone way up in the last few years, but it's all from the local level. Austin is basically run by a faustian combination of university children, old hippies, and tort lawyers. They spend like drunken sailors.

The Texas state sales tax hasn't changed in a long time, I'll try and find out when the last change occured.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

It's partly that I just don't like conservatives, but mostly that I would never vote for a candidate who was against abortion or is anti- gay. I guess that makes me a one-issue voter.

I don't think I'll ever vote for a third party candidate no matter how much I like them.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Jim I live down the road from you and agree. Now can you explain to me why the sales tax differs from Austin to New Braunfels to Canyon Lake to San Antonio... I just don't get it, in fact let's take this off of Beth's forum as I am sure it doesn't really interest a lot of the other people.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Now that's a question I'd like to know the answer to.

The "R" stands for "RrrrrRRRRoww!"

Or possibly "Raymond."

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but to me this says that the Republicans don't want to recognize same-sex marriages.

You read it correctly - they don't support same-sex marriages. But, like many who are supporting Nader dispite disagreeing with some of the Green party platform; that doesn't automatically imply that *all* Republicans, or Bush voters; for that matter, don't want to recognize same-sex marriages.

In fact; I am all for it. Maybe not for me personally; but I don't think my regular marrage would be threatened by it.

And they don't want to offer legal protection to someone based on their sexual prefrence.

I agree with this one - while there may be individual cases of discrimination based on sexual preference; I don't think that a civil rights style law would add any *additional* protection. Where there is a problem; I believe that there are alreay sufficient means to redress the problem through the civil courts.

Does that mean killing someone because they are gay should not be considered a hate crime?

*ALL* murder should be considered a hate crime.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Tim, my understanding of the current state of discrimination law is that in most states, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation. In other words, you can flat out refuse to hire someone because he or she is gay. This doesn't seem like a very libertarian sort of principle to me.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

I think that's a fair statement, Sprite. Most Republicans are neither anti-gay or pro-gay. We just don't care who you sleep with. There are fundlementalist Christians and Muslims who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but even they don't propose laws that would in any way punish gay people. One of the nice things about Republicans is that just because we don't like something, we are unlikely to try and ban it.

So you would support removing the legal obstructions that prevent committed gay couples from enjoying the same rights as committed heterosexual couples? And since most Republicans feel this way as well, you would expect the party to support such a change?

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

you can flat out refuse to hire someone because he or she is gay. This doesn't seem like a very libertarian sort of principle to me.

The libertarian principle would be that you can refuse to hire someone for any old reason at all.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

While I think Jim wrote a very nice post and should be a P.R. rep for the Republican party, I don't for a minute believe all republicans are either as moderate or thoughtful as he is (not that I agree one whit with any of his or his party's points, especially regarding hate crimes and abortion). Frankly, I think we're being given a snow job. They finally realized "I guess its not a good idea to have signs reading "we hate gays" at the convention" as they lost the last two times with that kind of attitude. If Bush explained himself as well as Jim, I wouldn't think all those people in Philadelphia were clear off their rocker.

I believe the Democrats have the exact same problem, by the way, except they talk left-center, and walk center.

There's no reason to believe every Republican is pro-life, but just because Bush agrees to disagree doesn't make him pro-choice! In the Republican case, the rank and file are further to the right. I'm happy that republicans on this forum happen not to be, but hey, what about that Texas delegation? That was just gross.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

actually, I'm not sure that anyone who claims the Democrats believe in "thought crimes" or "quotas for gays" (whatever the hell that means) can be considered moderate. I guess I don't really appreciate being told "not to panic" if Bush wins re: the abortion issue. That's right little missy. Don't you cause a stir. but hey, benefit of the doubt and all that.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Stijn de Jong - nice post. Much nicer than mine. Thanks for that. And I agree that most politicians are kinda slimy, and that political life/survival is the real core issue they all hold in common. However (and I am a registered (conservative) Libertarian who usually splits my votes between independent candidates and republicans), GW does appear to me to be a real decent guy. He seems to be a fairly high quality person, and I believe that what he says he means. Fiscally, I think he is going to be a little more free with MY money than I would prefer, at least his main goal is improving/reforming the education system and I appreciate that for the sake of my 1 year old daughter.

Jim Howard, I love reading your posts. Thanks for writing them, although I don't think your messages are seriously considered here. Voting for many liberals appears to be an emotional decision, and these voters respond much better to warm feelings and kind words than messages of personal responsibility, indiviudualism, and self- reliance.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Tim said: Nader gives most of his yearly *income* away to charitable causes; but he also has a large ammount of money invested away in principle. In summary, he has directly benifited from the various government policies, such as free trade, that he criticizes in his campaign.

Nader says: "Free trade" is a misnomer. Monopoly patents are not free trade; theyre trying to convert all sorts of natural knowledge into intellectual property, 20-year patents. Thats not free trade. And the rest of it is managed trade. True free trade would take only one page for a trade agreement. How come there are hundreds of pages, and thousands of regulations? Its corporate-managed trade.

Nader has nothing against FAIR trade. He is opposed to the current system, in which corporations subvert our the political power of U.S. citizens and are not held accountable for the damage they do. He invested according to his values - mostly in medium sized tech companies. He lives modestly, but also believes in having that investment money available to support the issues he is concerned about. And, I assume, to fund his election campaign. What is it about a sensible, middle-ground approach that upsets people so?

After studying Nader's positions, I find very little I can disagree with (despite my natural tendencies.) I may even vote for the first time in my life. It would be nice to have a president that didn't make half the world wonder what the hell the americans are thinking...and the other half run for cover.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

To define the statement I made about Clinton's moves to better the country:

He balanced out the national debt during his two terms, even though he was "busy" doing other things with interns.

A balanced budget wasn't signed into law until the second year of the Republican-controlled Congress. Clinton and the previous Democratic Congresses of his term did achieve some reductions in the defecit, but it was not eliminated until he was forced to deal with Republicans.

He has strengthened the economy and has made it possible for millions of people to find new jobs and support their families.

The economic expansion of recent has really little to do with anything the Clinton administration has done. The expansion began in the last few months of 1992 (before the Clinton inaguration) and has continued since. The economic expansion is due to the massive changes in American industry that can only be compared to the Industrial Revolution. On the government side, the only help that has been done has been what's _not_ been done, rather than what has. The Clinton administration had big plans for large tax increases aside from the one passed in 1993, which was the largest in American history, and for other government expansion, including the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy through his original health care plan. It was only the restraints put on by Congress that prevented these measures and the economic damage that would've occured from them.

He has switched the rules around on Welfare, making it so a single parent (either mother or father, doesn't matter) cannot ride the system while they sit at home on their able butts and do nothing while the working Americans support their ten kids.

The Welfare Reform bill was a Republican-sponsored measure that did not come up in Congress until after the 1994 elections that ended Democratic leadership in the House. Also, President Clinton vetoed the bill three times before public opinion forced him to sign it. For Clinton to take credit for that is disingenuous.

Making changes to the health care system to allow more people to get health benefits (even though HMO's suck, people still get medical care).

Clinton's plans on health care is to expand government's role in it and, as a end goal, to introduce nationalized health care and the virtual end of the private health industry. We only need to look at the excesses of these systems elsewhere in the world (Britain and Canada for example) to see why these plans don't work.

About George Bush Sr., making an idiot of himself:

The incident with the stomach virus comes to mind, but that isn't the main issue that sticks in my mind. Things like that can happen to anyone, and I honestly felt bad for him when that happened. I don't like how Bush screwed up the economy and put the country into further debt with his mismanagement. He avoided handling things himself; he sent Mr. Potato Head (a.k.a. Dan Quale) to do several duties. Pardon me for not getting into the duties here, there are too many to list.

First, the stomach virus thing isn't a credible thing to use to attack President Bush. The man couldn't help being sick at an inopportune time. On the economy, the recession of 1991-92 was only a few months in duration and the statements by the Democrats of the time of the "worst economy in 50 years" was pure hyperbole. In fact, to find a worse economic period, you only need to look to the previous Democratic administration of President Carter. Also, what isn't reported much is to what used to hold the record of the longest economic expansion in history: the period from 1981 till 1991, which covered the vast majority of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

As for George "W" Bush:

His choice for vice president, and almost positively himself as well, are for the NRA. Both of them are promoting guns and their effects. He wants everyone to be able to have a firearm in their house. Damn the people who are killed because of guns. Damn the kids who lose their precious lives because of guns. Damn the police that are killed by violent acts with guns. He is arrogant, he avoids answering questions if the answers would make him look bad. He lives in a fantasy world, (i.e., "read my lips. I'll be a great American President!")

Well, on gun control, one only needs to look past the propaganda and to the statistics. There has never been solid proof that gun control has made any significant impact on crime anywhere in the United States. On the contrary, there's is ample studies to show that gun control makes no measurable impact on crime rates where they are applied, while we do see significant drops in crime rates in areas with concealed weapons laws. Also, just in the past week or two, a study done by researchers at Georgetown and Duke Universities showed that the Brady Bill, one of the favorites of gun control advocates, has had little effect on murder and suicide rates in America.

IMHO, his choice of Secy. Cheney shows that Bush is looking not at political concerns, but governance concerns. Cheney has ample experience in Washington, from WH Chief of Staff, to House leadership positions, to serving as Defense Secy. during a major military conflict, and because of this, he could be a great advisor in a Bush administration.

On the press, after the primaries, Bush included some aspects of the open-to-the-press procedures that John McCain used during his campaign, by allowing the press more access and bringing them along on campaign stops. Contrast this with Al Gore and his refusal to hold a press conference for months.

I hope this is a little more detailed for everyone. I'm not used to debating politics with anyone because it has never really been an issue with me, but Bush really pushes my buttons. For the record, the above is just how I feel. I mean no harm to anyone, no hurt or hard feelings and no insults were meant to anyone with a different opinion. I realize I am in the minority with how I feel about Bush, but I did want to be truthful and honest in how I felt. Thanks for understanding.

No offense taken, just feel the need to respond to opinion with my opposing opinions.

- Tom, lurker who posts very infrequently

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

For all the "If Bush gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" people out there...if your ideas aren't worth standing up for, then shouldn't you re-evaluate their value in the first place?

Just for the record--I'm voting for Bush.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

Hi all - Just want to give a bit more information to those of you who are fence-straddling on whether a vote for Nader is a vote against Gore... and those of you who are afraid of "wasting" your vote...

Here's the deal - Massachusetts, where I reside, has 12 electoral votes. In the current system, if the majority of the popular vote in my state is for Gore, which it almost certainly will be, then Gore gets all 12 electoral votes. Hence, he "carries" the state. My vote for nader will definitely NOT lead to Bush taking Massachusetts. But it will allow me to increase the possibility that Nader will get 5% of the popular vote or more... leading to federal matching funds for the Greens in 2004.

If you live in a "swing" state, one in which there's a possibility that Bush will take all the electoral votes, then by all means, please please vote for Gore.

It's a crappy system, but right now it's the only one we've got.

I like the idea of proportio nal representation a lot.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

If you want to see how well the government run health care is in this country, just take a visit to a veteran's administration hospital.

Think you'll be better served by government doctors? Try suing one...oh yeah that's right you can't.

I've heard people in Europe with extremely socialized medicine say the care is as good as it is here in the US. However non-life threatening problems, like a broken hip for an elderly person, commonly takes months (six) to get attention for. I don't have any stats for the info to verify the frequency of this problem, but the situation would have no remedy in this country since you can not sue the government.

What's the point in having "government insurance" if you can't use it to relive your pain when you need it. If people are worried about accountants making medical decisions, as Gore/Clinton put it about HMO's (of which I'm not a participant I use one of the many other options available) why are they so comforted by the thought of a politician making the decisions for them?

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

My father, a Vietnam vet, has continuously received poor service from the veteran's administration hospitals.

He never gets to see a "real" doctor, only physician's assistants (and usually they have communications problems because many of them barely speak English). Records are continuously lost/"misplaced," which causes a denial of service for certain procedures since they can never seem to find previous recommendations of their own people.

A couple of years ago, he had a mild heart attack while he was about 50 miles away from the V.A. So, he went to the nearest emergency room where they did tests and kept him for three days. Seems pretty serious to me. However, the V.A. has decided that he should've been able to drive (with the chest pains) to the V.A. to get help and refuses to pay the medical bills (which he is supposed to be covered for). Now his credit is ruined, thanks to the government.

Many years ago he had a hernia operation which they screwed up and he's been nervous about going back and has been enduring the pain instead.

Over the years, the V.A. solutions to his problems (physical and mental), have been to keep him heavily medicated.

My grandfather, a WWII vet, has had similar problems.

I could go on...

This has been my introduction to government health care.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

Keri, your experience with government health care sounds remarkably similar to my experience with HMO's. On the other hand, I had excellent care from Air Force doctors when I was a kid.

I don't think good medical care comes automatically from either system. We clearly need some more creative solutions -- I'm in favor of government funded health care for everyone, but I don't want a monolithic governmental entity operating HMO-style, because that's no good, either. But right now I have what is considered to be a decent benefits package, and my health care options are abysmal. There has to be some other way to deal with this issue.

But we do have a health care thread, so I think we should move this discussion over there, and leave this page to the presidential elections.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

How many health care stories are there in the news concerning the private sector every week that should scare you? HMO's have taken what you pay for services, and then try to tell Doctors what they will pay for, or otherwise look for cost cutting. How sick do you have to get before your insurance company tries to drop you. Do you lose your benefits if you lose your job, or would you have to give up your current health insurance if you took a drastic cut in income? Would you lose your house and savings trying to pay bills? Also you can't get a organ transplant any earlier in the private sector, just because you can afford it (which is the way it should be). And if you're poor, you generally have to wait until your situation is emergent before being seen.

Really good health care is for all that have the finances. The private industry starts to lose interest when you can't, or no longer can pay.

If you're a kid, you can probably get into the Ronald Mcdonald type programs, or the St Joseph's hospital, but if you're an adult those options start disappearing until maybe you're old enough, and you can get that supplement from Medicare. And premium service such as payment for someone to drive you to hospital if it may be dangerous for you to drive to hospital is at a premium cost. (I know, my father has this problem right now, and he's privately insured)

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

oops sorry, didn't see your post Beth until after I posted mine.

But that's probably all I have to say on it anyway.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

Molly, if you want proportional representation in a Presidential election then you need only move to Nebraska or Maine. These states allocate their electoral votes proportionally already. Under our system it's up to the states to decide how to choose their electors.

If you want to play a bit with the electoral college system, visit my election calculator.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

Molly wants proportional represenation in presidential elections. While this seems like a good idea; it really isn't. If you don't feel that your vote is that powerful because of the electoral college; consider residents of rural states like the prarie states - the mostly rural population would make a concerted campaign a negative in any time/benefit analysis. Large blocks of population could be completely ignored.

And for all of you thinking about voting Green based on a protest vote, I would suggest that you take a peek at their platform. ...

I had a long screed about the Green Party platform in here; but it was a bit on the heated side. Let me just say that I fundamentally disagree with the GP platform; and I think that a lot of it's policies, if implemented, would lead to *less* freedom on a score of issues; rather than more.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

A correction to my last post: The URL I provided was to the Green Party platform; but was not the Green Party platform that Ralph Nader is campaigning on - that is located somewhere in www.gp.org. (Not, by the way, www.gp.com; but the juxaposition between the two *is* somewhat ironic.)

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

This came to me via a retired military mailing list. I think it gives some insight into GW Bush,the person: =======

You appear to be a staunch Republican and supporter of George W. Bush, and I thought you might be interested in my experience of last weekend. You may not know or remember, but I instructed George W. in the T-38 at Moody AFB after I returned from my first tour in SEA. I guess because I was the first Thud pilot to complete 100 and return, I was regarded as the local hero and wild man, and G.W. and I hit it off right away. He definitely had the fighter pilot "attitude" and went on to fly F102's with the Texas Guard. I visited with the Bush family in Houston on my way to D-M to check out for my second tour. GREAT PEOPLE!!!

He was in town last weekend visiting with the McCain's at their ranch in Sedona. When we came in from dinner Saturday night, there was a message from George W. on our answering machine saying he was sorry we couldn't connect but he would try to call again before he left town. Sunday morning, I had a charter flight departing Sedona and had to leave home about 0800. I may have been gone 5 minutes, when the phone rang, and Jan answered. When a strange, but familiar, voice asked for Tom Lockhart, Jan said he wasn't here, was this George W. Bush? and received an affirmative. She told him I would really be sick to have missed him but was on my way to the airport on my Honda Goldwing. He answered that he, too, was on his way to the airport and maybe we could meet up there. I was stopped at the Secret Service roadblock and unable to get into the airport, when a car screeched up, the driver asked my name, and then said "Come with me...QUICK!!" He led me out onto the ramp where I parked my motorcycle right beside the jet. G. W. came running down the stairs and threw his arms around me in a big bear hug. He called his wife Laura out of the airplane to introduce us. I told her I had known him even longer than she had, and she informed me she had heard those stories. He introduced me to the McCains, telling John that I was probably on his RESCAP or at least flying sorties during that period. He told him I had gotten my silver star when I was a Lieutenant and that I was one of his flight instructors. (Not a bad memory for someone you haven't seen for more than 30 years.) I remarked that this time around, I get to call him "Sir."

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000