frankie's Journal: Reasons to Support John Kerry

Many of my journals this year have focused on Bush/Cheney's record-breaking atrocities. Millions of people consider them sufficient reason to vote for Kerry.

However, other people agree that Bush is doing a bad job, but haven't decided why Kerry would be better. They need a positive nudge to get off the fence. Here is a partial list (not comprehensive) of my favorites:

1. National Security: You can't stop big-T Terrorism merely by killing little-t terrorists (*); there will always be new recruits to fill the vacancies. Kerry can get cooperation from the Arabic world to undercut their support of terrorism. Also, Kerry understands that if enemies wanted to bomb our cities, they're 100x more likely to use cargo ships than ICBMs. He'll employ our money, our influence, and our troops more effectively.
2. Divided Government: America runs better when it isn't a one-party show. America runs best when a reasonable President is able to reach across party lines and find common ground. Kerry can.
3. BCCI: The SCLM skips this because it's long and complicated. Short version: Despite efforts by both parties to stop him, John Kerry forced an investigation that defeated massive terrorist money-laundering. He also exposed Iran-Contra. Kerry is forceful and determined when that's what it takes to get the job done.
4. Health Care: medical costs are through the roof and still rising. Group leverage to get a better price is an efficient business-like policy that conservatives should love. However, the GOP doesn't; Kerry does.
5. The Environment: Long-term issues don't hit folks in the Maslow like money and survival do, but it must be said: "Think of the children!" The League of Conservation Voters endorse Kerry, and so do I.

(*) = Reminder: Al Qaida was not in Iraq until AFTER we botched the invasion and occupation.

You missed the best one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Kerry would REDUCE ABORTION [chron.com] back down to the level Clinton was at (as opposed to Bush's increase- and this is among the lowest numbers I've seen, other articles say 12%-21%, not 5%).

2: Divided government

[GQuon]

Wouldn't that argument rest on one party having a mojority in the House or Senate, while the other party has the president?
That depends on me understanding it correctly, i.e. the politicians make the best decisions when they're forced to work together and make compromises. The anti-thesis to this is in my country where business and politicians are talking up the benefit of having a cabinet representing the majority of parliament. We have more than two parties, and unless they can agree on forming a majority

Re:2: Divided government

[frankie]

BTW, what is your country? If you're Canadian, you already have divided government. No party has a sole majority in Parliament (Liberal Party 135, Conservative Party 99, Bloc Québécois 54, New Democratic Party 19, Not Affiliated 1), so they are forced to form a coalition. Compromise and partnership are emergent qualities in proportional parliamentary systems, whereas polarized duopoly is the norm in America.

Re:2: Divided government

[GQuon]

Norway. And just as in Canada, the parties have to form a coalition government, since no party has a majority of its own.

Re:2: Divided government

[frankie]

Exactly. Coalitions are inherently divided. Each side has to give up part of what it wants so that an agreeable common good can be reached. In the USA, when either the Dems or the Reps control both Congress and the Presidency, they go power-crazy and push laws that benefit their donors to the detriment of the nation.