Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry 346
ramoth4 writes "Local Crawford, TX (Bush's adopted hometown) paper The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. Kerry's home paper, the Boston Globe, hasn't come out with an endorsement yet. It's a very interesting editorial, especially in light of Bush's performance in the first debate."
Bush != Conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
Tripe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:1, Insightful)
I vote on these issues, in this order: abortion (against it), homosexual agenda (against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay), and the character of the candidate. In this election, Bush has the edge over Kerry in all three of these categories, so I'll be voting for him.
Why do we put up with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, shouldn't they at least TRY to be non-biased about the news they report? I know I know...there is this "Liberal Media" that's suppose to pump up all Democrats and rake-across-the-coals all Republicans...at the same time there are conservative news outlets that almost try to convince us that Democrats cause cancer....but shouldn't they at least pretend to not be biased?
I want my news from unbiased..."we don't endorse anyone" kind of thing. I know, it's a pipe dream to try to find just raw news reporting without SOMEONE saying it's biased one way or another.
Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.
Re:It's sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
--trb
Re:It's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes this a story is that Bush's hometown paper endorsed him in 2000. The Lowell Sun has been attacking Kerry relentlessly since 1972 when Kerry first moved there and upset the local good-ol-boy political network. It's not "news" when the Sun publishes the same "Vote Kerry's Opponent" endorsement it's published for the last 32 years.
-Isaac
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
When Democrats like Kerry come out talking about how eliminating the death tax was pandering to the rich. Farmers sitting at home trying to figure out how they are going to scrape by conclude that the Democrats have their head in the clouds.
I've known too many farmers get ruined by that tax to ever vote for anyone stupid enough to support it and I've got to conclude that if you can't (or won't) do simple research on this issue, you probably won't do it on others. I've even told some democrats about this problem and have met with nothing but name calling, denial, and rejection.
On a personal note, as someone who has personally spoken with many politicians on both sides I can at least say that whenever I've had a problem, the Republicans have listened and usually tried to help. I've NEVER had a democrat politician take the time of day to quit with their retoric and try and understand what I have to say.
That's not to say I don't disagree with the Republicans on many issues (I'm probably split about 50/50). But having repeated good experiences with them does influence my voting.
What the Constitution says and doesn't say (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause [umkc.edu] is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.
Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.
Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Fiscal responsibility. Bush has gone from surpluses to a record deficit. They have no plans for changing this.
2) Personal Liberty. The Bush adminstration has done its best to undermine the rule of law by declaring American citizens as enemy combatants and denying them trials.
3) Foreign Policy Realism. Traditionally conservatives have based their foreign policy on realistic assumptions and a narrow definition of national interest, not idealism based foreign policy. This has been horribly undermined by the Iraq War which was based on neo-Wilsonian principles of making the Middle East safe for democracy.
4) Small Government. Under the Bush adminstration the growth of discretionary domestic goverment spending has outstript the growth under Clinton. Of course the targets of the spending have typically been large corporations, but I don't think conservativism naturally favors screwing the little guy in favor of multinational corporations.
Can you state a conservative principle that Bush has upheld? The Bush adminstration is a alliance of crony capitalists and religious reactionaries. It has no relationship to what has traditionally been understood as conservative values.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem:
--------
Health care costs are skyrocketing, causing small businesses to suffer.
Kerry:
------
1. Raise taxes on the rich.
2. Use that to provide a tax credit to small businesses who provide health insurance to their employees.
3. Work toward universal government-mandated health care.
Bush:
-----
1. Allow small businesses to pool into larger groups to get cheaper health care.
2. Provide tax-free health care savings plans for employees (much like flexible spending accounts are today)
3. Medical liability reform to keep the lawyers out of the way.
There is a significant diffeerence between these approaches, and I think that difference very clearly outlines the philosophical differences between the parties.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about the OP, but I can make three suggestions (yes, this entire discussion may be off-topic). Note that your opinion of a conservative value may differ from mine (or anyone elses). If I were to suggest three conservative values, I would suggest the following (in no particular order):
Fiscal: Government should only spend on those key areas where it is required (National Defense, for example), and it should spend within its means.
Individual: Government's power over the individual should be limited.
Economic: Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.
Now, if we can agree that those are conservative values, George W. Bush's policies have all been in direct opposition to the above. Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs. Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).
Note that I am not saying John Kerry is a strong leader, I am only questioning how President Bush can be considered a conservative, at least by my three suggested definitions above.
How would you define a conservative?
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Human embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, which are very young embryos. In order to turn a zygote in to a blastocyst you have to let it grow.
That's the key difference. Harvesting embryonic stem cells is, ethically, equivalent to letting a baby grow only to kill it and use it for experimentation.
Medical ethics is important. It's better to be overly cautious in the face of hard ethical questions to give time for the philosophers to catch up with the engineers.
Particularly in this case, since the results from tests involving embryonic stem cells have, to date, been so utterly dismal.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:1, Insightful)
That's not a conservative value. That's a libertarian value. Be careful not to confuse them.
Government's power over the individual should be limited.
Um. That's not a conservative value either. In fact, that's not a value at all; it's a normative statement. I think what you might be getting at is that conservatives value personal responsibility and equality of opportunity. But if that's the case, then you should be soapboxing in favor of Bush, not against him.
Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.
True.
Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs.
The alternative is to not cut taxes and spend millions on social programs. Abolishing welfare is not something we have the political will as a country to do right now.
Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had.
That's blatantly false.
Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).
We subsidize farmers because we like cheap food. I don't want to pay four dollars for a potato. Do you? And if you'll recall Bush lifted the steel import tariffs. As for the airlines, what would you have done? Let the industry collapse in the wake of 9/11?
How would you define a conservative?
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Conservatives believe in strong foreign policy and in not compromising national sovereignty. Conservatives believe that small business is key to a healthy economy, and that the best way to attain prosperity is to cut taxes, and the best way out of a revenue shortfall is to grow our way out by stimulating the economy.
There's no way a conservative could ever look at John Kerry and see anything other than the opposite of all that.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the basic troubles with health care is the weather you like it or not, you are paying for the uninsured. The big trouble is that the uninsured cannot see doctor on a regular basis, so when they do have a problem they march into the ER, where they cannot be refused service, with major problems which require big money. Add to that the costs of having literly hundreds of different plans, coverages, forms, and policies, which futher burden medical administration. We need masssive reform.
Re:Why do we put up with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
See the editorial today in the nytimes as an example of this. They publish an editorial saying that Condi should be fired because of the Iraqi centrifuge lies/mistruths/errors/whatever. This was an opinion based on their investigative news article published on the weekend, which was an actual news item and not an editorial.
The point is that the Times presented the facts in the news pages, and suggested their opinion as to a course of action in the editorial pages. Many people _like_ editorials, and it's not reasonable to suggest that they should go away. A more laudible goal for you should be to decry the bias in the news articles themselves -- a very real problem -- instead of complaining about a popular feature of the newspapers.
Re:Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for reforming social security, but transitioning to a system where you pay into your own savings account has a few problems.
1) where do you get the money to support those that are currently on Social Security? Right now, it comes from those that are putting money in. As I'm sure you're aware, there's no giant pot of money that grows from year to year. The system is basically living from paycheck to paycheck.
2) How do you fund those that can't work, will never work (the disabled)? Even those that can be put to work at McDonalds will require services they can't pay for.
3) How do you resolve the fact that some people, even if forced to save a portion of their income, will never have enough money saved to be able to retire?
We can't access the money that people have already put into SS and transfer it into liquid assets because it's already spent.
I just don't see a way to transition (switching from a zero cash balance model to savings) Social Security into something else without screwing over an entire generation, either by denying them benefits or making them pay double. That's fine as long as the generation that gets screwed isn't mine.
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
No I've consolidated the National Debt and the Social Security Debt. They both exist now. Afterward they'd be part of the same thing. People who have paid in for social security do have a legitimate claim against the government.
> You're funding the current retirees how again?
The same way we do now. We're just being explicit and efficient about it. I'm going to borrow money from you and agree to pay X, then I'm going to pay this other person like I promissed him. That's how the national debt works.
We already have a national debt of trillions of dollars that we have to service and pay down. Savings bonds tend to pay lower rates then Treasury bonds. So we are making it allowable for the goverment to use the money it OWES people more flexibly (in this case to pay down higher interest treasury bonds, as new money comes in) We'll also save money on administrative costs and overhead by not having to keep the S.S. money separate and have an entire department to manage. S.S. just becomes "I buy a savings bond every week and my employer matches me".
> So if I'm self-employed, I get twice as many Savings Bonds as the guy next door.
If you are doing your taxes correctly you pay S.S. from your pay check and then again as your own employer. So yes, you paid twice as much so you get twice as much.
> So, what do you do when, a few years from now, when the retired-and-now-broke me shows up at the emergency room (or the polling station) demanding that I be taken care of because I chose to cash-out years ago? And haven't we been here before?
Social Security has nothing to do with your hospital bill. That's a separate (equally f***ed program). Social Security as it is isn't going to pay you enough in most parts of this country to live anyway, and even if it did and you cashed out and were stupid enough to not budget you own money appropriately (after you've been told exactly how much you had), I don't think that's the government's problem. I'm sure some charitable organization will help such people (they existed before social security, and they exist now, so I see no reason to beleive they will cease to exist). If you really do think this is a problem then make the Social Securty bonds be a special class that matures slower so that people can't cash out as soon.
there is an implicit understanding that people need help in their retirement, and society has a responsibility to provide that.
I would say that's a false assumption, Americans don't need Daddy Government to take care of them, especially when Daddy Government can't get his own sh** together.
Social Security is a HORRIBLE retirement investment. Almost everyone gets out LESS then they put in. ANY financial advisor who recomended such a plan to his clients would be thrown in jail for FRAUD. Just because the government is doing the frauding doesn't make it right.
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that equality of outcome is anti-conservative doesn't make equality of opportunity pro-conservative. Conservatives seem to act like equality of opportunity already exists even when it clearly doesn't; I tend to believe that this is because conservatives don't really want equality of opportunity (as seen with their implicit endorsement of the "good ol' boy" system that rich people enjoy). FTR, I think that equality of opportunity is mostly valued by centrists.
There's no way a conservative could ever look at John Kerry and see anything other than the opposite of all that.
You could say the same about George W. Bush.
Rob
Re:As a Conservative, this said it best for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so.
I'm not sure which Republican Party he was thinking of, but the Republican Party I know has not been fiscally responsible or balanced budgets for over 20 years: http://www.centrists.org/images/charts_and_graphs
Re:Bush != Conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the industry collapse no, let United, American, Delta and U.S. Air collapse yes. They are dinosaurs running dinosaur business models and they deserve to fail in a free market system and they probably are still going to fail and take all our tax dollar subsidies with them. Southwest, JetBlue and their ilk are clearly the winners in the industry and they should win without the government meddling in it and picking winning and losers.
As much as you rant in praise of Capitalism I'm dumbfounded when you defend the anticapitalist tendencies of the current Republican party.
They are in fact using our tax dollars and their stranglehold on power to reward their friends and punish their enemies. You don't have to look any further than the Medicare "Reform" bill which was a gigantic giveaway of our tax dollars to the health care and drug industry, and is offering very little benefit to seniors. Sure they get a drug discount but the drug industry was given a blank check to raise prices so they can erase the benefit of the dicount in a heartbeat. As a reminder the Medicare administration is fordbidden by that law from negotiating fair, quantity pricing which is why drugs are reasonably priced every place but the U.S. It is a mechanism for transfering our tax dollars in to the pockets of the drug and health megacorps with no real benefit to seniors and at a staggering price tag.
"Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity"
Well then the current administration is not conservative. Reference above Medicare reform, and reference all the no bid contracts in Iraq the Bush administration is handing to its cronies. If there were equality of opportunity any company could have bid for those contracts and the best bid would of won. Instead the companies that are winning are tapping the crony network to get an inside track on no bid contracts.
Cronyism is not "equality of opprtunity" it is their friends win and those who are not their friends don't even get a seat at the table.
"Conservatives believe in strong foreign policy and in not compromising national sovereignty."
Real conservatives abhor nation building and becoming entangled in foreign situations that are not integral to American security. The war in Afghanistan passed the "coservative test" since it directly affected American security. The war in Iraq DID NOT.
As you recall in 2000 Bush ran on a classic conservative platform that rejected nation building. In practice the Bush administration is nation building all over the globe, albeit they are doing a spectacularly bad job of it in Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq in particular.
"Conservatives believe that small business is key to a healthy economy"
Yes they do but, the Bush administration by contrast is, in practice, overwhelmingly favoring policies that are destroying small business in America. The most obvious example being outsourcing of jobs to China which is devastating small business in America. Big corporations have no problem outsourcing, its a major challenge for small business to do it or compete against big business doing it. Walmart is single handedly devastating small business across the nation, both small retailers who can't compete on price and suppliers who Walmart is overtly pressuring to either offshore to China to match those prices or go out of business.
Another obvious example of anti business practice is the Bush administration gave Microsoft a free pass, a get out of jail free card, to a convicted monopolist. You don't favor small business by giving predatory monopolies a license to kill small businesses with innovative ideas.
Republicans can shovel shit about how they favor small business but their policies are obviously massively favoring big business, and especially big business relocating to China.
"We subsidize farmers because we like cheap food."
We subsidize farmers becaus
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the officer I bothered to track down and speak to before forming assinine opinions about something I know nothing about (unlike a certain other slashdot poster): the terrain was incredibly dangerous and air support wasn't an option, and our troops hadn't had time to do proper recon and the military felt (this is the key here, MILITARY EXPERTS, not some POLITICIAN, but an OFFICER DOING HIS JOB; the SAME OFFICER that will work for Kerry if he's elected) that the risk to our soldiers lives was far too great given our alternative options. I'd love to see you make better calls IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR. Do you know anybody in the Army or National Guard (trained for Mountain Duty or not) that wouldn't have volunteered to go into that battle to try and kill that son of a bitch?
They didn't know the certain SoB was there until AFTER battle plans were drafted up and the fighting had started. Again you are making a call after the fact. The whole issue is moot however, No matter who was president, the call would have been the same because the president doesn't sit around micro-managing the military.
I mean Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his generals
Maybe because others (including the General I spoke with and I'd presume other military advisors working with Rumsfeld) felt they had a better plan? Rumsfeld did his job: he made the call as to which plan to go with
As I stressed above, the real problem with the plan seems to be that Turkey jumped ship at the last minute and wouldn't let us lauch an assault from the north at the same time. That fubared the plan after it was too late to change. Turkey's pullout is a legitimate complaint against Bush, his team's diplomacy FAILED and cost our troops lives because it fubared the military plan.
How come everyone wants to throw out BS complaints when there are perfectly valid ones that can be made? Maybe just maybe it's because it's a lot easier tow some party line and quote sound bytes off of national TV then it is to find experts get their thoughts and make an informed decision independant of what the spin-masters tell you.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:1, Insightful)
But it is still "alive" and it posesses all of the building blocks necessary to create a human baby.
So does my load on a petri dish full of ova. I wouldn't think twice about putting it all on a cracker and... throwing it in the trash, despite the potential. Come to think of it, we are all walking around with unused potential building blocks. Women: menses is murder! Never expel unused eggs and uterine lining again. EVER! Men, save those sperm. I mean all of them, I don't care how many gatorade bottles you have to stuff in your freezer.
> If a space probe found on a distant planet > a "ball of undifferentiated cells",
> EVERYONE would be proclaiming, "We found
> life! We found life!" Well, if it's life,
> then it should be considered as such.
Oh, face it - unless it talks, is exceedingly cute, AND doesn't taste like chicken, whatever it is will be bred and stir-fried. End of story.
You badly need some perspective. Ramming a coathanger into a 2nd trimester fetus is one thing - harvesting stem cells from an 8-week embryo is something else entirely. It isn't a forgone conclusion that it's unethical. Sure, it's debateable, but there is plenty of room for discussion if you can dispense with dogmatism for a moment.
And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're also both aided and abetted by a media which never concentrates on substantive issues and instead gives us a constant, meaningless stream of soundbytes, empty endorsements, and stupid comments about which candidate had the slicker speaking style or better hair.
We've let politics in America degenerate to the banality of the Redskins/Cowboys rivalry, (btw: Go Cowboys!) and in effect, insured that the government will grow stronger at our expenses, and for the benefit of big business and other special interests.
What to do about it? This year, I'm seriously planning to vote for a third party candidate who more closely matches my values. I'm also taking the attitude that I should live my life the way I want to. If I don't like one state's tax policy, I'm not moving there. I voted with my feet and moved to Texas instead of California. If you don't like Wal-mart and other unethically run businesses, then find some locally owned businesses to patronize. If you don't have any, please move to Austin and support our local businesses. I didn't buy an SUV bacause I don't want to consume that much fuel, and I bought a 1000 square foot condo instead of the big house I can afford. I don't see the need to buy a bunch of needless crap to fill up a big house.
Re:Did you look at your own "data"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rob