Who is going to win the Nov. 2, 2004 elections?

[editor]

An example of this would be joining the Libetarian party.  I do not believe that all abortion should be legal, which is part of their platform, and so to join together with them I would have to set aside my principles in order to advance the rest of the goals of the party that I agree with.

This is news to me.  The fastest growing segment of the Libertarian party are homeschooling Christians.  I was not aware of any such platform.

Libertarians are against a federal ban, or a federal subsidy of abortion.   It should be up to the states, according to the constitution.

Nevertheless, supposedly the republicans have a ban on abortion as part of their platform.  This is true, at least on paper.

Now look back at who spoke at the last Republican convention:

Rudy G.----pro-choice
Arnold Schwarzzeneggar--pro-choice
Zell Miller---Pro-choice
John McCain---pro-choice (I'm not positive about this one, but pretty sure)

What's up with that?  

The reason I guarantee that Bush won't appoint constructionist judges is actually a simple logical conclusion based on what he has done.  

Hopefully, I'll be eating crow in four years,  I would really like that.

Libertarians aren't the "answer" either.  However, at least they want to leave me alone.  

Please read the 1996 and 2000 libertarian presidential candidate's position on abortion:

Abortion: I received the following email:

I have been a faithful libertarian for over 10 years, and happily voted for you. I only have one problem: the Libertarian position on abortion. Everything I have read by you and other Libertarians treats it as a woman's privacy issue.

If we are truly for life, liberty, etc. how can we not be firmly pro-life and protect the unborn?

A woman's right to privacy simply does not trump anyone's right to life.

Please help me understand.

Chris

I believe that, until science can prove that life begins at some point beyond conception, I must assume that abortion is the taking of a human life. Thus I am firmly opposed to abortion.

Knowing what government is and how it perverts whatever it promises to do, I am just as firmly opposed to any government program to stop abortion.

I hope those who believe abortion is wrong won't waste their time trying to get government at any level to reduce abortions. Government never delivers what you want. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it will protect the unborn?

Government doesn't persuade; it forces. And that's why it can't bring about any lasting change you might want.

Its War on Poverty has expanded welfare in America. Its War on Drugs has escalated the use of drugs. Any government War on Abortion could easily lead within five years to men having abortions.

Every day we spend begging the government to stop abortion is a day wasted — a day that could have been spent doing something truly effective, such as . . .

• Working for less restrictive adoption laws.

• Encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion.

• Repealing the income tax so parents can spend more time with their children, teaching them values that will minimize teenage pregnancies.

• Repealing any law that encourages people to ignore the consequences of their actions.

As with any other problem, only a program of education and persuasion — undertaken voluntarily by individuals, not government — can work. I admire the people who work so hard to dissuade young women from rushing into abortions, who arrange adoptions for pregnant women who aren't ready to raise a child, who fight to undo the restrictive adoption laws, and who spend their own money to celebrate the lives of children who weren't aborted. These are efforts that make a true difference — unlike those of politicians who pose and preach and promise, and never deliver anything.

To me, abortion is a horror. But giving politicians the power to run your life, hoping they will stop abortions, isn't the way to end the horror. In fact, in one way or another, it's bound to make a bad thing worse.

To answer your question, this isn't an issue of a woman's right to privacy or anyone's right to life. It's an issue of how to achieve what you want — which is to minimize abortions. And government is never the way to achieve that.



Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

You posted this:

"Knowing what government is and how it perverts whatever it promises to do, I am just as firmly opposed to any government program to stop abortion.

I hope those who believe abortion is wrong won't waste their time trying to get government at any level to reduce abortions. Government never delivers what you want. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it will protect the unborn?

Government doesn't persuade; it forces. And that's why it can't bring about any lasting change you might want.

Its War on Poverty has expanded welfare in America. Its War on Drugs has escalated the use of drugs. Any government War on Abortion could easily lead within five years to men having abortions."

What?

1. Government always perverts what it promises to do.
 
Really?  Slavery isn't illegal?  We didn't win WWII?  Eisenhower never built the national highway system?  We never reached the moon?

Government isn't perfect, to be sure, and frequently fails to do all it tries to do.  But "always" is extreme....and just plain wrong.

2. Government shouldn't try to reduce crime, since in "always" fails.  Really?  

Since government hasn't stopped rape, murder, robbery or any other crime....therefore it shouldn't try to even limit them?

BTW, I'll tell you a little secret.  When goverment DID outlaw abortion, all through my younger years, it was rare.  Yes, there were illegal abortions, but not 1.5 million per year.  More like a few thousand.

3. The war on poverty has expanded wellfare.  True. But on the other hand the reforms the Republicans forced on Clinton has REDUCED federal wellfare payments by 60%.

4. The governments war on drugs has expanded the use of drugs.  Really?

All those federal agents are out there holding those poor lefties down and sticking needles into their arms, blowing coke up their noses, and lighting up their Maui Wowie for them.    

5. Within 5 years men will be having abortions.  Really?

Whoever wrote this is nuts, or is one of the guys the government agents are holding down.

Or, maybe he is just a typical Libertarian.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

I just got done listening to Bill Moyers interview Greg Thielman, a State Department intelligence analyst and I cannot ever remember feelig this sad and despondent about politics.

The Bill Moyers show is not known for objectivity.

Perhaps. As I said I listened.
I thought it was amazing how a veteran analyst of stature like Richard Clark all of a sudden became, according to the administration, this unstable and confused guy when he started to talk about the things he did...
Moyers lack of objectivity does not change facts.
The same goes for Michael Moore...
The question is how we interpret the information.
There is no question in my mind that the facts, regardless of who is reporting them, indicate that this administration deliberately misrepresented intelligence information to the American people in an attempt to sway public opinion to the support of invasion of the nation of Iraq.
It worked.
This does not make tham any less liars.
I suspect that it is this slowly dawning realization that is beginning to swing sentiment in the direction pollsters are seeing.
It would be a remarkable repeat of the Spanish election results.
Nobody likes being lied to by their government and they should rightly suffer the consequences of their folly.
I am sure Spain is quite happy to be out of Babylon...
Verne

[outdeep]

There is no question in my mind that the facts, regardless of who is reporting them, indicate that this administration deliberately misrepresented intelligence information to the American people in an attempt to sway public opinion to the support of invasion of the nation of Iraq.
It worked.

I guess why I still have a hard time beliving the "Bush deliberately deceived the American people to go to war claim" is because everyone on capital hill had access to the same information that Bush had (including Kerry, Howard Dean, etc.) and the still they voted to go to war.  I do agree that the intelligence was flawed (as we later found out), but based upon the information available, the leaders made a united decision.  Kerry's psudo-justification of "well, I voted for the war but I thought we were going to talk about it for a while with the UN first" is lame.  He voted for the war along with Bush because they all believed at the time that it was the right thing to do.

The problem for Democrats is that this successful response to 9-11 made Bush a very popular guy.  How would they be able to win this next election so that they could appoint judges to preserve Roe vs. Wade?

The only way would be to demonize Bush.  Call it an unjust war.  Call it an unprovoked, preemptive strike.  Put the blame for the war on him and act like they had nothing to do with it.  By the sheer volume of repeating the claim over and over again, more and more people begin to believe it.

Their campaign from the beginning was based on little more than to bring Bush down.  "Someone else for president" and "win at any cost".  It just might work.

P.S.:  Kudos to Joseph Leberman who sacrificed his presidential shot by standing by his decision to go to war.  Man of integrity, methinks.

[al Hartman]

     It appears, from the poll on this thread, that if Bush loses the national election he can fall back and be president of the BB.

     Comments on a couple of recent quotes:

by Brent:

Kerry has the courage to mount a viscious campaign of slander to bring the other guy down, while Bush hasn't the courage to oppose/expose him and defend himself.  I can only speculate as to why this is the case, and my speculation leads me to conclude that Bush hasn't the moral fiber or statesmanship to risk political capital by telling the truth: His opponent is a treasonous liar.

     While I tend to share your assessment of Kerry's character (with exception of his "courage," which I attribute to simple expediency), I disagree with your speculation of Bush's reserve.  My guess is that his handlers convinced him that (1) any personal attack on Kerry would be siezed upon by the Dems and turned against him as being desperation tactics, and that (2) by maintaining silence about Kerry's person and character, Bush would be thought by many to be occupying the higher moral ground.

by Mark:

 The final four years afford Bush an ability to make changes that are more conservative because he will not be facing re-election this time.

     True, Bush will not be facing re-election, but his party will still want the presidency, and will do everything they can to persuade him to play ball with their long-range goals "for the good of the party."  The man will have to truly emerge as a free moral agent to hope to accomplish anything personally.

BTW/FYI:

     The World Wildlife Federation sued the World Wrestling Fereration over the latter's use of the former's initials, "WWF," and won.  So now the wrestlers have to go by some other name.  My circus of choice is Ringling Bros., so I don't know what the actors-on-steroids call themselves these days...

al

[editor]

Brent,

You posted this:

"Knowing what government is and how it perverts whatever it promises to do, I am just as firmly opposed to any government program to stop abortion.

I hope those who believe abortion is wrong won't waste their time trying to get government at any level to reduce abortions. Government never delivers what you want. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it will protect the unborn?

Government doesn't persuade; it forces. And that's why it can't bring about any lasting change you might want.

Its War on Poverty has expanded welfare in America. Its War on Drugs has escalated the use of drugs. Any government War on Abortion could easily lead within five years to men having abortions."

What?

1. Government always perverts what it promises to do.
Yes, it does.  Social Security, Welfare and Medicare are the big 3, with the IRS a close 4th.
Really?  Slavery isn't illegal?  We didn't win WWII?  Eisenhower never built the national highway system?  We never reached the moon?
Tom, you silly goose.  A government department, with a comprehensive congressional mandate didn't end slavery, the union army did.  Military conflict is one of the legitimate, constitutional duties of the federal goverment.  Successful Military campaigns ended slavery and WWII.  Yes, Eisenhower built the Interstates, but like every other government department, the department of transportation is totally out of control now that it has grown up.  If you think they have taken care of the highways by taxing our gasoline more and more, you haven't driven much lately.

Yes, NASA brought us to the moon.  How are they doing now that they are all grown up?  Burt Rutan is going to make NASA look silly.  Very few government programs do so little, with so much as NASA has lately.

Government isn't perfect, to be sure, and frequently fails to do all it tries to do.  But "always" is extreme....and just plain wrong.
No, it's not

2. Government shouldn't try to reduce crime, since in "always" fails.  Really?  

Since government hasn't stopped rape, murder, robbery or any other crime....therefore it shouldn't try to even limit them?

BTW, I'll tell you a little secret.  When goverment DID outlaw abortion, all through my younger years, it was rare.  Yes, there were illegal abortions, but not 1.5 million per year.  More like a few thousand.
I won't tell you any cute secrets.  I'll tell you the truth.  It is not up to the federal government to deal with rape, murder, robbery or drug use.  the constituion limits the federal government to dealing with piracy, counterfeiting and trades and tariffs.  Everything else is left up to the states.  You make the false assumption that Libertarians are anti-government, when in fact they are in favor of constitutional government.  Abortion was rare in your younger days, to be sure.  However, this was due to the fact that they weren't federally funded.  They would still be rare if they cost as much as any other comparable surgical procedure.  Making them illegal won't eliminate them entirely, but getting rid of the funding will severly limit them.  This is up to the states, not the federal government.  I'm not against government, I'm against the intrusion of the federal government into areas they do not belong.

3. The war on poverty has expanded wellfare.  True. But on the other hand the reforms the Republicans forced on Clinton has REDUCED federal wellfare payments by 60%.
Welfare is still growing in total cost.  It was the rate of growth of one particular aspect of welfare that was reduced in 1994.  If you lump all the various aspects of welfare together, you will find that it is a growth industry.  Regardless of this fact,  when the federal government set its mind to eliminate poverty, they did no such thing.  Instead, they created and enslaved a permanent underclass of lazy slackers who are adept at working the system.

4. The governments war on drugs has expanded the use of drugs.  Really?
Yep, really.  Marijuana use was a fraction of what it is today before it became illegal.  Same with Cocaine, LSD, Heroin, etc.  The War on Drugs is the single biggest drain on our economy, not the mention the most eggregious intrusion on our personal liberty.  An entire continent's economy is dominated by the drug trade.  80% of all incarcerated criminals are there for drug related offenses.  The vast majority of our law enforcement budget goes towards to drug war.  Organized crime, in the form of violent street gangs, exist for the sole purpose of reaping profits from the sale of illegal drugs.

In spite of tough anti-drug laws, and more and better drug enfornement, record seizures of all types of drugs are the norm, with no end of supply in sight.

It is far easier to obtain LSD or Crack on any highschool campus, than it is to get a beer, yet alchohol is a legal, regulated drug.  If you think the war on drugs is the least bit successfull, you are willfully ignorant of the facts.

People take drugs for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the "coolness" given them by the rock'n'roll, gangsta, hip-hop culture.  No government program will ever be able to stop the law of supply and demand.  

All those federal agents are out there holding those poor lefties down and sticking needles into their arms, blowing coke up their noses, and lighting up their Maui Wowie for them.  
This is a good example of your smarmy side Tom.
 
5. Within 5 years men will be having abortions.  Really?
It's called hyperbole.  It's a form of humor that appeals to a mildly intellectual audience in order to illustrate the absurdity of something.  Nevertheless, when the federal government got involved in fighting a war on poverty,  they actually created more people on the public dole, living below the poverty level.  In like manner, their attempt to "educate" about birth control as resulted in more pregnancy, more abortions and more babies born out of wedlock than ever before.  The governments programs aren't working, Tom.  You can't legislate to cause people to behave morally.  Sometimes hard knocks and bitter consequences must be employed, which is how it would be if there were no safety net for these people.
Whoever wrote this is nuts, or is one of the guys the government agents are holding down.
I'm sorry you are so paralyzed in you thinking that you can't re-evaluate your positions on anything.  If you actually think the republicans have reversed any of this you live in a fantasy world.

Or, maybe he is just a typical Libertarian.
Harry Browne is a quintessential Libertarian, and you would do well to read his many articles and books.  He has a far better mind and far better grasp of the issues than you do.

Thomas Maddux

Brent

[Arthur]

Last week Bush changed his stance on gay marriage,  saying civil unions are ok if states approve.  Earlier this year he opened the border to truckers from south of the border, to the devestation of many US truckers.  He continually tries to show that there is no difference between religions, saying we all serve the same God and in his speeches making reference to "every church, mosque, synagouge, and temple", in fact the religious leader chosen to give the opening prayer to the Republican Convention was the first muslim chaplain, er iman, of the NYPD (can we say twilight zone?).

The sad thing is that despite these things, Bush is an infinitely better man and president than Kerry.  God help us.  
This year there is a liberal candidate and a socialist, globalist candidate.  No conservative candidates on the ticket :/

Supreme Court:  You want to talk true colors being shown, look no further than the ruling on sodomy.  6 of the 9 justices said that sodomy is perfectly ok with them and should not be illegal.  The three who withstood it were Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia.  
The other six are going to hell, IMHO.

re: Abortion, it's a big racket now. Just like the AIDS racket, the cancer racket, you name it.  Neither legislators nor justices will ever put an end to it because they are bought and paid for like any cheap slut on 9th street.  Money and position are more important to them than the lives of innocents.  To hell with them.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU should be broken up and their members imprisioned.

Arthur

PS, I also voted for McClintock.

[sfortescue]

Reagan did a lot to improve the economy by winning the cold war.
Clinton did a lot to reduce our quality of life by promoting corruption.
Such differences don't show up right away.  It takes time for consequences to develop.

As for Bush's war on terror, bad people seem to be very upset with him.
Even Bin Laden made an appearance just in time for Halloween to let us know his opinion.
Perhaps Bush is doing something right, considering who's unhappy with him.

About Libertarianism, I was thinking that it might be a good cover for reducing the power of government to the point where foreign interests could just walk in and take over the country.  In Pilgrim's Progress, Christian and Faithful are asked by merchants in Vanity Fair what they would buy.  They replied, "We would buy the truth."  Without government standards defending truth, even the government itself doesn't know whether a thing is true or not, and so the government itself cannot function and dies.

An example of this is rumors of Bush being on some kind of "medication".  How does the government know that this "medication" isn't some kind of mind control drug being used to partially control Bush's actions?  I claim that they don't know, because drug studies are now done by the drug companies instead of by the government.

[editor]

As for Bush's war on terror, bad people seem to be very upset with him.
Even Bin Laden made an appearance just in time for Halloween to let us know his opinion.
Perhaps Bush is doing something right, considering who's unhappy with him.

Yes, he's doing something right.  However, he isn't doing enough and not doing what he is doing in a forceful enough manner.  That's my opinion.

About Libertarianism, I was thinking that it might be a good cover for reducing the power of government to the point where foreign interests could just walk in and take over the country.  In Pilgrim's Progress, Christian and Faithful are asked by merchants in Vanity Fair what they would buy.  They replied, "We would buy the truth."  Without government standards defending truth, even the government itself doesn't know whether a thing is true or not, and so the government itself cannot function and dies.

Steven, you must not have taken the time to read what Libertarians stand for.

Libertarians believe strongly in our constitutional form of government.  The constitution plainly states that the federal government is to maintain armed forced for national defense.  Every libertarian I know, including the last 2 presidential candidates advocate a military force that can kick the living #E!! out of our enemies.  If you think for one second that libertarians want to weaken this countries national strength, or sell our freedom to foreign interests, you either:

1.)are totally ignorant of the Libertarian philosophy.......
2.)Believe what you heard someone say who is totally ignorant of the Libertarian philosophy or who wants to discredit it for some other reason.
3.)Haven't the mental capacity to understand words and meanings.

Since I know that you are extrememly capable of doing number 3, I can only conclude that you really don't know what you are saying.

George Washington is a classic Libertarian, as was Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and many others of the founders.  No, they didn't call themselves "Libertarians," but they talked and wrote about freedom and liberty, and were willing to fight and die for it.  If you think Washington was going to weaken the fledgling country he helped birth, then I can understand why you might think Libertarians might do the same.

You guys, many, if not most of you, really don't get it.  You have read my posts on Iraq, terrorism, etc.  After reading those, do you actually think I would advocate a weakening of our national defense?

Seriously, how much have any of you investigated the Libertarian ideals?  
Have you ever read a book by a great economist?
Have you ever read Supreme court opinions by John Jay?
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
When was the last time any of you read the Constitution of the United States?

I bet it's been never to quite a long time for all of you.

Shame on you for putting something down you know nothing about!

Brent

[editor]

     It appears, from the poll on this thread, that if Bush loses the national election he can fall back and be president of the BB.

     Comments on a couple of recent quotes:

by Brent:

Kerry has the courage to mount a viscious campaign of slander to bring the other guy down, while Bush hasn't the courage to oppose/expose him and defend himself.  I can only speculate as to why this is the case, and my speculation leads me to conclude that Bush hasn't the moral fiber or statesmanship to risk political capital by telling the truth: His opponent is a treasonous liar.

     While I tend to share your assessment of Kerry's character (with exception of his "courage," which I attribute to simple expediency), I disagree with your speculation of Bush's reserve.  My guess is that his handlers convinced him that (1) any personal attack on Kerry would be siezed upon by the Dems and turned against him as being desperation tactics, and that (2) by maintaining silence about Kerry's person and character, Bush would be thought by many to be occupying the higher moral ground.

Of course I didn't mean that Kerry has courage.  You correctly read between the lines and understood exactly what I was saying; Kerry will do or say anything to gain the office.  His only principle is that he will sell his own soul, or anyone elses if only he can win.  

As for your observation regarding Bush and his handlers...I think you've got it.

This great leader and statesman is so brave that he listens to his handlers.
He also is such a gentleman that he will actually risk letting this country fall under the power of a lying scoundrel, rather than be seen to not be occupying the higher ground.  

I couldn't have made the argument more forcefully myself.  

Remember what I always teach my kids, which I learned in the Assembly:

"It's not what you actually do, or who you actually are that matters.  It's what other people think you are, or what you tell them you may have done that really counts.  It's who you look like that is important, not who you are."  

It is so important that Bush be seen as a non-desperate person who behaved in a more gentlemanly fashion when being faced with a man like Kerry. That is true character.....right?

How utterly sick.

I would have infinitely more respect for Bush if he kicked Kerry in the 'nads, than behaving as if Kerry is actually his equal.  The man is a treasonous Liar!  What is wrong with Bush for not coming right out and stating the truth?

Oh, that's right...his handlers.......

Brent

[Arthur]

Well...looks like Bush.

[outdeep]

Interesting comment from World Magazine blog www.worldmagblog.com:  as of Nov 3,2 004 6:36 AM EST

The official big media electoral vote total is Bush 254, Kerry 252. That doesn't count Ohio, where Bush has a lead of 140,000 with 99% of precincts in, or New Mexico and Iowa, where Bush has leads of 11,000 and 15,500, respectively, with virtually all the precincts also in. Add those to the Bush total and he has 286 electoral votes, a comfortable majority.

Curiously, big media have had no trouble declaring Pennsylvania for Kerry, although that race is tighter than Ohio's; Wisconsin for Kerry, although his lead there is less than Bush's in Iowa; and New Hampshire for Kerry, although his lead there is less than Bush's in New Mexico. Note also that Bush won the popular vote by 3.6 million, a figure unimportant in comparison to the electoral college vote-- but remember in 2000 the fuss big media made about Gore receiving more popular vote than Bush?

[outdeep]

Kerry conceded.  Bush won Ohio and the election.  Thanks, Al.  

[al Hartman]

Kerry conceded.  Bush won Ohio and the election.  Thanks, Al.  

     Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift.  Only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ can we begin to appreciate His sovereignty over all things, including the earthly politics of men.  Those politics being the morass that they are, we should take great comfort in knowing that our God reigns supreme.

     Cathy and I were blessed in that our wait to vote was only about an hour, all of which was spent indoors, away from the inclement weather.  In nearby Gambier, OH, the students and faculty of Kenyon College waited over ten hours, some not getting to vote until about 4AM, EST.  There were only two booths there, and the majority refused to settle for provisional paper ballots because they may have not been counted unless necessary to decide the election.

     Media exit polls indicate that about 25% of the midwest voters were Evangelical Christians, and that the number one priority in midwest voting was moral values.

     We all have much for which to be thankful today.  This would have been true regardless of the election's outcome, but as things now stand, we can be specific in adding that to the list.

God bless,
al

[outdeep]

Al,

Speaking of God's sovereignty, one point I read was the fact that the court arogance in ordering gay marriage in Massachusetts caused a backlash at the polls that worked in Bush's favor.

-Dave

I wonder how Michael Moore is doing today.  Or Dave Mauldin.