I like what Bush has done internationally to a large extent. I don’t care for what he’s done domestically.
Kerry would probably not please me in what he does internationally but he’d probably stay closer to the middle of the road domestically.
That’s why I’m undecided. Short version.
OK!!!
I’m pro-choice all the way.
Against gun control.
Glad we kicked Saddam’s ass, but wish we hadn’t been lied to about the details.
Don’t want a vast tax increase.
Disappointed in Bush’s deficit spending.
Don’t know that Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Bush.
These and many other things will have to be balanced out in the coming months before I make a decision.
PS: Kerry is NOT off to a good start with me. He claims that he’s been told by foreign leaders that they want Bush out, but he won’t name said leaders. I want to yell: “CITE!” at Kerry about this. He needs to study an SDMB adage: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. If he’s not willing to say which foreign leaders made such a statement to him, he should have kept his mouth shut.
Time will tell. (or not)
PPS: If I hear: “I’m George W. Bush and I approve of this message.” just ONE more time after a republican commercial, I’m gonna puke!
Heh, yeah, but if he doesn’t say that, he would be breaking some new campaign finance law.
Thanks for the reply! I do not want to turn this into a Great Debate here, but seems only fair that I tell you my position. Oddly enough, my views are very similar to yours, but my outcome is much different.
Gun control is not a large issue for me one way or the other. I am willing to see taxes go up some. Everything else about as you said.
But these positions seem to me to make Kerry a better choice.
His world leader thing does give off the reek of “Crud. I never thought that they would really question that statement so closely.” but many documented reports do indicate that many leaders of the free world want him to win. A small politician lie like this played against Bush repressing the true cost of the prescription drug bill until after the vote? I have to go with Kerry.
Don’t want deficit spending OR tax increases? Well, then you really didn’t want Bush to invade Iraq unilaterally. I see no way that we are going to get deficits under control until we are out of Iraq AND we raise taxes a little.
If Democrats are “Tax and Spend”, it seems Bush is “Borrow and Spend”. I’d rather suck it up and pay for it now instead of passing it on to my kids. If anyone wants to argue these points, I can start a Great Debates Thread.
To be honest, maybe as a libertarian I lean slightly more towards Bush, simply because I believe that social freedom doesn’t mean much without economic freedom.
However, I think I’d be happiest if it ended up that there was one party in the White House and the other in Congress (without a veto-proof majority, of course) so that the gridlock would keep a lot of bad ideas from becoming bad law.
Well, I’m not sure if I’d rather cut my own throat with a rusty spoon or ram a red-hot railroad spike up my nethers, if that’s what you mean.
What kind of spoon is it?
Hmm. I’d make just the opposite argument. Economic Freedom means little without social freedom. Each to their own. I’d rather be poor but free to smoke pot in my own house, you’d rather have money and let the government tell you who you can marry.
(Hmmm. That was an easy example and not intended as some kind of insinuation.)