Hey, Democrats! Convince me to vote for your candidate in '04!

Great Debates
1

I’m a conservative. I’ve never voted Democratic for president. I like taxes to be low, and environmental and industrial regulations to be lax. I oppose affirmative action (in the sense of set-asides and preferences). I’m a card-carrying member of the NRA. I prefer a starkly limited welfare state. I support strong national defense. Sounds like a hopeless case, doesn’t it?

Well, take heart. I also oppose military tribunals and the holding of citizens and non-citizens without trial, and the apparent attitude of the Defense Department that anyone it designates a terrorist has no constitutional rights whatsoever. I don’t oppose these things just a little. They scare the bejeezus out of me. I simply cannot accept the president arrogating to himself the power to set the jurisdictional limits of another branch of government, the judiciary, when the Constitution gives him no such power. I believe it strikes at the heart of limited government, a concept I thought used to mean something to conservatives. This upsets me so much that I feel required to at least consider voting Democratic in '04.

I am willing to grit my teeth and bear things I don’t like to get constitutional government back. I’ll accept higher taxes and suffocating regulations on business, even to the extent of worsening the recession. I’ll accept affirmative action at least so long as the discrimination against me doesn’t get any worse. I’ll accept increased handouts of my tax dollars to the non-working. I’ll even accept limited increases in gun control, short of widespread or politically targeted confiscation.

What I’m really afraid of is voting for a Democrat in '04, getting all the taxes, regulations, affirmative action, and other things I can’t stand, and still see the tribunal order, the holding without charge, the arbitrary deprivation of constitutional rights to suspects, and suchlike police state measures continue.

So, which Democratic presidential candidates are solid bets to reverse the big assaults on constitutional government? I’ve pretty well ruled out Lieberman and Dean, both of whom have come out 100% in favor of the tribunals. Under no circumstance would I vote for Sharpton, no matter what he says, since I don’t believe a single word that comes out of his mouth (I fell for the Tawana Brawley hoax; fool me twice, shame on me). That leaves Edwards, Kucinich, Gephardt, and Moseley-Braun that I know of.

So here’s my vote, come and get it! Tell me which candidate will give us civilian trials and a constitutionally limited president again. And if there’s more than one Democrat out there who will do it, which will be most acceptable to a conservative like me?

2

I think you left out John Kerry.

3

Right. I knew I was forgetting somebody.

4

You ought to vote for my guy because he is a whole lot smarter than your guy. You ought to vote for my guy because when his country called he went. You ought to vote for my guy because he has not had his father’s political buddies bail him out. You ought to vote for my guy because he hails from the “anti-Texas.” You ought to vote for my guy because George W. would do much better as Commissioner of Baseball. You ought to vote for my guy because he is the guy you forgot.

5

I’m a middle of the road liberal and I hope to be able to vote for John McCain.

I ain’t holding my breath though.

6

If that’s the case —> no one knows law better than a lawyer, especially a trial lawyer—> So pick Edwards.

7

Easy. If you vote Democratic, the odds increase that GWB will lose. (Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.)

8

www.deanforamerica.com

Give Dean a look.

I appreciate your open-mindedness in looking for options.

Despite the current support for Bush, like his father before him, I do not think he will win a second term.

9

I agree with DMark: Dean is my favorite. I was disheartened until I gave him a stronger look a couple of weeks ago, and I’ve been spreading the gospel of Dean ever since. Bush, like his father, is a fundamentally weak candidate, no matter how popular he may be right now, and I am sure he can be defeated in 2004. I’m not sure he will be, but I’m hardly sure he won’t be, either.

With regard to your concerns about Dean’s support for military tribunals, Danimal, I’ve never heard of that. If you have any information about it, I’d appreciate a source. That would be disturbing to know, if it’s true. Dean’s overall veneer doesn’t suggest that he would support these tribunals, and I went through the Homeland Security section of Dean’s own web site and found no mention of a support for tribunals, nor anything that suggests that he would support them. He doesn’t specifically come out against them, either, but I’m inclined to feel he’s opposed to such a plan and will continue to feel that way unless someone can come up with evidence to the contrary. Like I said, if you’ve got some, I’d like to see it. Thanks.

Here’s the section on Dean’s site about Homeland Security:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?section=about&page=issues&drill=homeland

10

Souns to me like you want to vote Libertarian.

Time to give up the two party system, people.

11

Sounds to me like you want to vote Libertarian.

Time to give up the two party system, people.

12

Sorry, stupidly corrected myself after I clicked submit.

13

Chance, the Rutland Herald reports that “Dean deferred to the president on his decision to issue executive orders authorizing the use of military tribunals.” See at http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/38357.html .

Let me reiterate that I’m not going to vote for just anybody the Democrats nominate; I need to see some good hard evidence that their candidate stands against the specific police state measures that I outlined above. If I can find such a candidate, I also mean to jump over to the Democratic primary and vote for that candidate.

14

Voting Libertarian would be much popular if it wasn’t for the Libertarian party members. It’s really too bad.

Both Kerry and Dean impress me, but I’m not sure either of them have a chance. I’m registered republican, mostly because they scare me more, and thus I want to be able to vote in their primaries, but politically, I’m a small-l libertarian.

I’m also someone who would vote for McCain gladly.

Convince me, too, wouldya?

15

I think there’s a certain amount of value to the attitude that one must defer to the judgment of the man in the hot seat even if one disagrees with him; Winston Churchill’s speech in Parliament on the death of Neville Chamberlain says it best for me. Though they disagreed vehemently on the policy of appeasement, Churchill recognized that Chamberlain stood for something noble and fought for it with the best efforts he could muster. I see Dean’s stance as much the same: in a time of crisis, the man in the White House is the one who must make the decisions, and while one may disagree with him, deference to his making of a tough call in a controverted and critical situation is not totally wrong.

BTW, DMark and Chance, after reading the Dean website, I’ve offered my services to his campaign. I’d liked him before; I like him even more now, to the point where I’ll stand by him.