I've had a few misgivings about posting this, but I've decided to go ahead anyway. I'm asking Bush supporters out there to please explain to me why his policies offer a good direction for the country.
First let me point out that I did not particularly like Kerry in the Primaries and I don't like him any better just because he won. I'm not trying to persuade any Bush supporters to cross over to the Kerry camp. I just want to understand the logic behind Bush support because I've looked at his policy stances and proposals, and I am at a loss. They simply do not make sense to me. Not only do the positions not add up (e.g. if we suck money out of Social Security for individual retirement savings, who pays for all the current retirees?), but I don't understand how people can believe some of the talking points that are repeated when the facts do not bear them out (e.g. yes, Bush was the first president to fund stem cells, but he was also the first president to restrict stem-cell funding).
So here are the rules for anyone offering explanations:
1. Stick to the substantive positions on issues.
2. Be polite and thoughtful. We're striving for a mature discourse here.
3. Spell out all words. We're commenting, not taking dictation.
4. The following words are irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of Bush's policies and record: "Kerry," "flip," "flopper," "horse," and "midstream." Please avoid.
So I call on Bush supporters to please explain the logical process that led you to support Bush's positions on issues and plans for the future of the nation. I'm just trying to understand the sides before I cast a ballot in a couple months.
1 comment:
Thanks for the comment and thanks for wandering over here, Rose. I think it is really poor what the states are doing to Nader. Everyone in every state deserves the full range of choices, so Nader should be on the ballot in all 50 states and invited to the debates. The two-party system is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American political system and we'd all be better off with not only a third party, but a fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh. Maybe in a few days, I'll do another entry about that. I personally am not affiliated with any political party, though I joined the ABB crowd and voted in the Democratic primary this year.
Nader has proven that he has great ideas and can execute them, and I admire him for that. He focuses on the truly important issues. Nonetheless, I have some misgivings about his ability to actually lead the nation should he ever be elected President, since he has made a life out of opposing the establishment. I can't see how he would retain the qualities that make him such a great force in politics if he were to become the establishment. That's the only reason I don't usually say anything about Nader here.
Post a Comment