The Chicken Whisperer

Mapping the Predictions

I hope this guy is right, but I think he's on crack a bit optimistic. He thinks the Electoral total will be 381 to 157 in favor of Bush. Not very likely it seems to me.

Why I'm Voting For Bush

Now, I made it obvious in my previous endorsement post that I’d be voting for Bush and I noted I’d probably have more to say on the matter. Also, I had posted several reasons to vote against Bush and I noted that sadly, there was no candidate around that would make me take those reasons and vote for someone other than Bush. Kerry, in almost every instance would be far worse on the complaints I made.

Now, I’ll lay out my reasons to vote FOR Bush. Obviously I feel that Bush is least worst candidate available. But, there are also reasons why he is the best candidate available.

1. I believe he is a good man. Ahh…how sweet. Seriously, I’m a pretty calculating voter and voting for the better man, character-wise, is only part of the reason to vote for someone. I thought Bush’s dad was a good man too even thought I voted against him in ’92. The reasons I voted for Clinton were stupid in hindsight, obviously. But, with George Herbert Walker Bush, I believed he was a good man, but I did always remember the caveat that he was head of the CIA during the 70s. No man who headed up the CIA in the heyday of the cold war could have escaped the experience without some dirty hands. But, Dubya really strikes me as a genuine guy. Bush is a real Texas cowboy, despite his family’s New England roots. He’s genuinely emotional. He truly admires the strength and courage of the soldiers, firefighters, and families of all those struck by tragedy in this war we are engaged in. He seems in awe that he is the commander-in-chief of these fine men and women and hopes like hell he is doing right by them. Nothing in his persona leads me to believe that this is anything less than genuine. I believe the reason he did so poorly in the 1st debate is because he is truly flabbergasted that so many people don’t “get” why we are in this war and why we must fight it in places like Iraq. He believes it in his soul and believes it’s the way the to save this nation from future 9/11’s. I think he wore that emotion on his sleeve in that debate, and unfortunately it was an Achilles heel from a debating perspective.

   Bush’s wife, Laura is just about as classy a first lady as I can remember. She has a class and an elegance that is akin to Jackie Kennedy’s (yes, the blasphemy), it’s just more hidden by the librarian sensibility. She’s not as brooding as Rosalyn Carter, not as calculating as Nancy Reagan, not grandmotherly like Barbara Bush, and not as…um…bitchy as Hillary Clinton. Their daughters speak to what good people they seem to be. These girls are fun, optimistic and unique in their own way. Yes, these girls like to party, as did their dad. But, that’s what I like. The Kerry girls seem to have that typically elitist “concern” with the sad state of the world. The Bush girls are living life and that’s OK with me. They’ll worry about the state of the world soon enough. The Bush family just strikes me as one to admire. As great a man as Reagan was and as loving a wife as Nancy was, you have to always remember that as people, they raised some fairly screwed up kids. Nancy, by all accounts was not the best mother in the world. No one’s perfect obviously. But, Dubya and Laura seem to me as people who kept things in perspective and raised their family in a loving carefree environment. Once Bush decided to enter politics, some of that changed I’m sure. But, they seem grounded. Again, the public personas of politicians are only a part of why you should vote for them. That persona is always going to be a few shades off from how they really are. I don’t know the Bush’s personally after all. But, these perceptions of the Bush’s move me to like the guy personally more than any president in my lifetime.

2. He “gets it.” He understands why we must fight the war as aggressively as we have. The Bush foreign policy is no doubt the most radical and risky foreign policy in the post cold war era. It carries risks that perhaps are greater than those of the cold war. Or rather, the risks are more unpredictable. I don’t mean to minimize the palpable fear of nuclear war. I’m old enough to remember it. But, terrorism can strike anywhere anytime WITHOUT REASON. Everything the U.S. & the U.S.S.R. did was logical and calculating and most importantly, operated under the assumption that both sides sought self preservation.

   The risks of Bush’s foreign policy are mostly incalculable. The enemy has a death wish. The enemy also has, by any reasonable analysis, a very unrealistic and unattainable goal. They seek to restore a 12th century religious empire across the Muslim world, one that would include some areas that are westernized secular industrial societies (Spain, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, to name a few). This simply is a pipe dream. The “inevitable” communist world that was once the goal of the USSR was not at all unrealistic considering the progression of the 20th century. And the USSR wasn’t willing to risk annihilation to attain it. That’s why they could be fought in a grand multi-generational chess match that eventually brought the down fall of Marxist-Leninist communism. The fascist Islamist ideology of the terrorists is one that glorifies suicide and believes the act of killing infidels is, in and of itself, a worthy cause even if the big goal of a dominant Muslim empire is put off for awhile. These murderer's can’t be dealt with logically. Thus we have Bush’s radical “hail Mary” of a foreign policy. I have no idea if it will work long term. I believe it will and I belive it must be tried. But I also know that many ugly bumps in the road will occur. I also know that it will take multiple presidents to see this through. Bush is setting the tone and the context. Kerry has no interest in this big idea stuff. This scares some people about Bush. Rightly so, I suppose. We live in scary times. You can go on offense, or play defense. Simply put, you can give up your freedoms here at home to have a little more security while the threat festers outside your borders OR you can take the fight to the terrorists and make sure it is THEIR freedoms that are being infringed upon. Given the choice, I vote to keep my liberty and remove the liberty of the terrorists. Bush gets this. Kerry isn’t even in the ballpark.

3. He wants to lower taxes. He believes this is the right thing to do. He has not only walked the walk, he has talked the talk. He will try to make the tax cuts permanent.
   
4. He doesn’t seem to care all that much about budget deficits. Budget deficits are caused by spending. They always have and always will be. I believe balanced budgets are way overrated (a rant for another day). I choose lower taxes over balanced budgets any day of the week. Bush seems to agree. Big kudos to him on this.
   
5. He will TRY to appoint strict constructionist judges. Megan McCardle’s libertarian breakdown of the choices we face summed up this one perfectly:
   

   The Supreme Court: Bush. A number of commenters have tried to convince me not to vote for Bush by trying to scare me with dire tales about another Scalia or Thomas appointed to the bench. Folks, this is like trying to scare me with a free Porsche. I'd be in heaven with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench. Why am I supposed to be so scared, again? Oh, right, abortion. News flash: libertarian does not equal pro choice, and pro-choice does not equal pro-Roe. As it happens, I'm pro-choice (reluctantly), but I'm against Roe v. Wade; I think the matter should be decided at the state level, and NARAL can use all the money it raises to lobby to provide bus tickets and nice hotel rooms to women wanting abortions in states where it is illegal.

   What she said.

6. He will continue to piss off elitist liberals. I don’t think I need to elaborate on this one.
   
7. He will continue to piss off Europeans and the U.N. Note to John Kerry: This is not a bug, it is a feature. The U.N. is as corrupt an institution as we have seen. It is run by cynical career kleptocrats who were profiting off the suffering of Iraqi citizens with the Oil-For-Food program. U.N. “peacekeepers” have been found to have overseen sex slave operations (in Bosnia and various African programs); to harboring terrorist (the West Bank and in Lebanon); to sitting idly by while massacres took place within earshot (Srebrenica and Rwanda). And now they are faced with a growing genocide in Sudan, and they want to put their fingers in their ear and shout “la-la-la.” Europe’s efforts to bring peaceful ends to world problems include doing jack squat while Yugoslavia imploded to trying to bribe Iran into building nuclear plants and asking them to promise not to make weapons from the technology. And Europe is trying to rewrite the history books and say that the last 50 years of peace (outside of Yugoslavia) occurred because of the good diplomats in France and Germany and had nothing at all to do with the many divisions of U.S. troops and the U.S. nuclear umbrella that allowed them spend lavishly on their own welfare states instead of national defense. Until the U.N. does anything to treat the democratically elected government of Israel as more legitimate than the thieving totalitarians that run much of the Middle East and Africa and until Europe backs away from their utopian socialism and takes responsibility for their own baggage, then I think the concerns of these two entities is way down the list of priorities of American national interest.
   
8. He’ll attempt to reform social security. He’ll likely have little success, but it sounds like he’ll try. Hopefully, unlike his education and Medicare reforms, the solution won’t be full new and expanded government sponsored problems to go along with the very few good ideas that come out of it.
   

My priorities as a voter are as follows:

1. Fight to win the war on terror
   
2. Lower taxes
   
3. Cut the size of government
   
4. Reform and partially privatize Social Security
   
5. Strict constructionist non-activist courts
   
6. Reduce regulations on industry
   

He’s great on #’s 1, 2, and 5. He’s made attempts and provided the idealogical underpinnings of #4 and #6. He’s been horrible on #3. Overall, he’s mostly in line with my priorities. That’s why I’m voting for him.

The Envelope Please (oh no! he's gonna talk about gay marriage)

My Endorsements for the upcoming election, in case you asked:

President: The Hanging Chad....er....George Dubya Bush. If you've read anything on this site, that should be obvious, but I may have even more to say about that later (update: More above.

U.S. Senate: Sigh...Johnny Isakson. I'm just not excited about him. I wouldn't go so far as to say he is a tool, I'd just say he strikes me as someone who will toe the party line and add very little in the way of groundbreaking legislation. I just don't see this guy leading a charge to free my generation from the Social Security tax burden or to defend the concept of federalism. It'll be boilerplate modern conservatism with little risk taking involved. As a more libertarian sort, this doesn't exactly thrill me. On some local public service show they had each candidate talk about what they'd do. The Libertarian, from a policy standpoint blew away the competition (and I don't think he even talked about drugs). But, he did so in a captain-of-the-debate-team sort of way. Plus he didn't look at all clean shaven. Maybe I'm superficial but I like my Senators to look and act, I don't know, Senatorial. Majette is a typical liberal who, after a mere two years in office, threw away a perfectly safe Congressional seat just so she could run for the Senate which she'll lose badly. The byproduct of this lousy decision is that Cynthia %$^#&@&* McKinney will be back in Congress. We're all losers on this count.

Public Service Commissioner: The Libertarian, Jalynn Hudnall. I know, Libertarians have a bat’s chance in hell of winning and the national Libertarian Party is run by a bunch of utopian cranks, but still this is a position whose main purpose is to regulate state utilities and other industries in the public interest. I love irony as much as the next guy, and voting for a Libertarian in this position is full of wonderful ironies. And a nice middle finger to give anti-free market state regulators. Trust me, its fun.

I live in a very Republican part of the state and every other partisan state office is uncontested with the Republican who won the primaries as being the only choice, so I won't comment further on local Congressional seat, state senate seat, state house seat, etc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia: This is a nonpartisan election and all I have to go on is the Atlanta fishwrapper's voter guide. The priorities of each candidate are pretty unrevealing. They'll each judge cases fairly and without prejudice. Yada Yada. What's this? Mike Sheffield says that he'll "not legislate from the bench." Being a strict constructionist and pretty well against judicial activism, this guy sounds right up my ally. Go Gary Sheffield!! Oops. I mean, go Mike Sheffield! You had me at "not legislate."

We have two amendments to the Georgia constitution that are up for referendum. The one that will be listed as #2 on the ballots is the one I'll address first. According to the AJC's voter guide the amendment says the following:

This is the wording that will appear on the ballot: "To provide the Supreme Court jurisdiction to answer questions of law from federal courts. (House Resolution No. 68): Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction and authority to answer questions of law from any state appellate or federal district or appellate court?"

What it means:
The proposed amendment is aimed at improving efficiency in the federal court system.
The Georgia Constitution already allows the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to answer an unsettled question about state law that could have an important bearing on the outcome of a federal lawsuit. The proposed amendment expands that authority to the federal court judges in Georgia who sit one level below the federal appeals court.
The proposed amendment, backed by the State Bar of Georgia, would allow litigants in U.S. District Courts the opportunity to find the answer to an important state-law question long before their case is appealed to the 11th Circuit.

OK, sounds reasonable to me. I'm in favor of government efficiency as long as it doesn't hamper my rights. I can't find a good reason to be against this, so okie dokie.

Now the 1st amendment that will be listed on the ballot (I save the best for last you know). As I've stated before I'm a fairly libertarian sort who has flirted with both major parties, as well as the Libertarians, at one time or another. At this point, I'm solidly for the Republicans. I'm not a GOP stooge however. I genuinely disagree with the "religious right" on many issues. I have other problems with the GOP as well, but none of those problems would make me vote Democrat, since the Dems are usually far worse than the Republicans on issues near and dear to my heart. Well, the big issue on our state constitution is an amendment is regarding gay marriage. The amendment is as follows (again, from the voter guide):

This is the wording that will appear on the ballot: "To define marriage as the union of man and woman. (Senate Resolution No. 595): Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

If voters say yes, here's what will be added to the constitution:
"MARRIAGE
"Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage.
"(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
"(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'

Well, I'm against this amendment, for many reasons. 1st, I take the Seinfeld approach to homosexuality. I don't want to be called gay, and I'd be insulted and worried to be called such, but "not that there's anything wrong with it." Seriously, gay people aren't a danger to society as long as we don't force them to be. What I mean by this is that gays are often marginalized because they are not accepted by what I'll reluctantly refer to as main stream Americans. Do I think two men sleeping together is cool? Uh...no. I find it fairly repulsive. I dig chicks, as they say. But, what they do in their bedroom is none of my business. Again, I'm libertarian, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

I'm also against this amendment because I don't think the government has much of any say in defining or regulating marriage between two consenting adults, straight or gay. I know WHY they do. When you get the government defining or giving out everything from health care to retirement funds (that probably won't be there in 40 years) then they have to dictate how the spouse receives such benefits should the person "owed" those entitlements die. Moreover government requires businesses to insure "families." Because the government has already put itself so knee deep in spousal affairs, they do have a very keen interest in how marriage is regulated. But, without the initial regulation and entitlements (in the form of forced employer handouts or straight handouts from the government to individuals), then the necessity to regulate marriage in the first place would have little place. Marriage is a commitment made between consenting adults who are in love. How this commitment is defined or given (whether in a church, hotel or Las Vegas drive in) is completely up to the individual. I have my own ideas about how marriage vows should be given, but those are my OWN beliefs. As long as you are not invading or damaging my ability to pursue life liberty and happiness, then what you do on your own is none of my business (with some common sense exceptions of course). And it's not the governments either.

I know the legal issues revolving around marriage are complex. Legalized gay marriage is being forced down our throats by activist courts. I do not like activist courts (see above). I believe this should be handled legislatively at each states discretion. The fact that this amendment is on the ballot is a good thing in my mind. And if it passes, then people who are offended by it are free to live with it or pack up and leave. There are actual legal means today that give many of the legal ramifications of marriage to gays. They are just expensive and complex; somewhat at the whim of the courts as to how valid they are. I am not saying I want gays or anybody else offended by this legislation to leave the state. I think our state would be worse off without the diversity these people provide. However, I'm a federalist and believer in the goals of the founding fathers. There is not a constitutional right to marriage. Whether straight or gay, it is not in there. See for yourself. Is this an oversight by the founders? No, I think it's not in there because they didn't think it was their job (i.e. the federal government’s job) to mess with it. It's up to the states. So, even though I'm dead set against this amendment, it is perfectly legal and constitutional for the state to put this to a vote. And if it passes, people are free to vote with their feet. This is how it is supposed to work. Bob Barr addresses the concept of federalism and this issue better than I could. He is the former congressman from Georgia who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act and is AGAINST a federal Constitutional Amendment that would ban gay marriage, on federalism grounds. Do I doubt that legalizing gay marriage opens up some legal issues we otherwise wouldn’t have? No, but each can be dealt with individually. That’s what legislators get paid for.

(Update: I added this paragraph after the initial post) Another thing I initially forgot to mention. The civil union issue. I'd be ok with a defined "marriage" as man/woman if civil unions that provide the same legal mechanisms to same sex partners. That's a decent compromise but the way I read this amendment is that it doesn't seem to leave open the option of civil unions. So, it's full bore, no holds bar discrimination of gay people.

One final note: I know a lot of social conservatives worry about the impact of allowing gay marriage on society. Not to be too flippant, but we allow Larry King and Britney Spears to marry MULTIPLE TIMES. And my marriage and I bet most of your marriages are not any worse off because of it. I think our marriages will survive Andrew Sullivan tying the knot with his boyfriend as well. I love how people often say "well, gays are so promiscuous." What a nice little box to put them in. Gays, on the one hand are labeled promiscuous, but the one certain way for them to attempt to prove otherwise (monogamy) is denied them. Nope, that's not marginalizing an entire sector of our society is it? Seriously, straight heterosexual folks have done plenty that would damage the "institution" of marriage and yet the institution is just fine. In fact, many statistics show that divorce is declining and marriage is increasing among all demographics. This should be applauded. And the addition of a small minority of same sex marriages should not matter either way to that. Churches would be free not to recognize them. That's also within their rights. Individuals can believe homosexuality is sinful too. I disagree, but one's faith is not mine to define. If you believe that's what the Bible says, then that's your right. That IS in the Constitution.

This isn't to say that I'm perfectly open-minded about this stuff. I have major moral problems with gay adoption (a discussion for another day). I don't know if these moral objections rise to legal objections, but that is an issue that is not settled. And, like many heterosexual males I have laughed at gay jokes. Then again, I loved Queen as a band even though I often feel squeamish when I now listen to such songs as "I want to ride my bicycle" and can't help but be scared about what innuendo is going on there. But, these are my own prejudices and do not change how I deal with people of the opposite sexual persuasion. It's their life and their life alone. I hope the voters of Georgia feel the same way, though I'm not optimistic.

Tax the Rich!

This is a great simple little example of why trying to soak the rich with tax increases is bad for the economy and the federal treasury. Check it out.

Yes, I am Worried

Last Post of the Night. I am worried about this election. Bush failed to put Kerry away. We have no idea if the polls are right or not, for any number of reasons. We also have no way to predict turnout. The Democrats always do great on turnout, partially because of all those Dead & Non-Citizen Democrats who somehow get to vote. But the Republicans have made great strides in turnout themselves (see 2002). But, I just don't know what to think.

The (anti)Kerry Spot is my favorite caustiously optimistic conservative political site right now. It makes it sound like Bush, from a battleground state standpoint is more on offense (he's visiting states that went Gore in 2000). But, the media, led by CBS and the New York Times have been relentless and dishonest in trying to take Bush down. And everytime they come out with a hit piece, the networks run with it and Bush's poll numbers sag. Rumor has it CBS is gearing up for another one on 60 Minutes this Sunday so that there won't be enough time to debunk it before the election. They were trying to do that with "stolen" explosives story, but the NYT had a momentary lapse of ethics and decided to run with it this past Monday instead of waiting until the last moment. And it's been fairly well shown to be full of holes.

I have no idea how this will all play out. It stresses me out. Not so much that Kerry could win, though that is scary enough, but HOW he will win, by the main stream media essentially working on behalf of his campaign and burying any news that helps Bush (good economic data, good Iraq news, factual problems with anti-Bush ads, the many attacks on Bush/Cheney campaign offices, and the attempts at voter fraud which almost always involves Democratic districts). I believe very dearly in the freedom of the press and believe in its necessity. However, our main stream media holds declining but still enormously powerful sway over the American electorate. And they are using it to the fullest extent for one purpose: defeat George W. Bush. We really need Bush to win the popular vote and to win the electoral college by at least 50. Otherwise, constitutional crisis.

Four more days. Let's get it done.

(NOTE: I tried to clean this up this morning. I left out a few letters and what not. It should be clearer now.)

Endorsements for President

The really smart chick who runs janegalt.net(a GREAT name for a libertarian blog BTW), has come out with her endorsement for president. It's an insightful read and since I've been watching her posts and her inability to really come down on either side, so I know she's struggled with it. Check it out.

And Jonah Goldberg breaks down quite simply where he's coming from.

And, I'd be remiss if I didn't point you to a guy, Andrew Sullivan, I really enjoy reading who, sadly, drank the Kerry Kool-Aid and endorsed the good Senator. This from a guy who is very pro-war and has been mostly pro-Bush. But, he's gay and, well, Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment which would essentially ban gay marriage, possibly even civil unions (depending on how it's interpreted). I believe this is why Andrew Sullivan has moved away from Bush. I can appreciate that, except that he is intentially fooling himself into thinking Kerry and the Democrats would be just as effective fighting the war on terror if they are forced to be responsible for it. I think that's delusional, but Sullivan is an influential voice in the blogosphere and deserves to be heard, even when he's flat wrong. Everyone who reads Sullivan knows the real reason he's moved away from Bush. What's disappointing is that he's rationalizing it by convincing himself that Kerry is better than Bush on the issues Sullivan has traditionally agreed with Bush on.

Capitalism is Slavery, Communism is...Freedom?

George Orwell would be proud of this little protest stencil on the University of Wisconsin campus. A system that operates on the free exchange of goods and services is somehow the equavalent to having a gun to your head. Yes, you must go buy three items from page 12 of the Land's End catalog. Or you will be shot. Or something like that.

The idiocy of the left never disappoints.

He's Alive...And Channeling Michael Moore

It would appear Osama bin Laden may in fact be alive and not a speck of dust in a cave somewhere. He's back and trying to influence the election. Here's the transcript. Try to read it without knowing it's Osama and think just how similar parts of it are to ramblings of Michael Moore. Though I worry about the boastfulness of this post at The Kerry Spot (don't count your chickens and all that) , I do think it would be great if Al Quaeda's attempt to influence our election boils down to a tape, instead of a bombing. Keep your fingers crossed that that is the case and be forever vigilant.

Reasons to Vote against George Bush

(NOTE: I'm fairly sick here and just don't have it in me to spend too much time proofreading, grammar apologies in advance)

1. Out of control spending which has led to the ballooning deficit
   
2. Compassionate Conservatism is a bit too similar, in price, to Compassionate liberalism
   
3. The prescription drug benefit
   
4. The No-Child Left Behind act
   
5. Signing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform
   
6. His inability to fire anybody over the various failures in executing the war on terror
   
7. The Homeland Security Department, and to a lesser extent, the Patriot Act
   
8. Not properly using his bully pulpit to make sure the case for Iraq was more than WMDs
   
9. The many problems of the Iraq occupation
   
10. Repeatedly Going to the U.N.
    
11. Taking France seriously
    
12. Not giving enough support to the freedom fighters of Iran
    
13. Getting, perhaps a bit too friendly with Vladimir Putin
    
14. Colin Powell’s State Department, which sometimes fails to understand that diplomacy is only ONE piece in the foreign policy tool belt
    
15. Supporting the continued expansion of the EU
    
16. His Bio Ethics committee that is largely against any sort of cloning whatsoever
    
17. His desire to start off on a positive note on judicial nominees by pushing through all the Clinton appointees who were stuck in the queue when he took office. He did this thinking Dems would be more apt to push through his own court appointees. He was a bit too optimistic here.
    
18. His poor performance making the case for the war in Iraq.
    
19. Allowing his budget people to fool him into thinking the budget surplus was permanent.
    
20. His steel tariffs and his naked political pandering (read: pork) to swing states
    
21. His performance in the first presidential debate

OK, so what does all this add up to? Does ad up to a vote for John Kerry? Uh….no. I gripe about his big government programs and runaway spending which has shot the budget deficit through the roof (along with a sour economy when he first came to office, which drastically reduced tax revenues). However, Kerry will be even more expensive with his health care plan by itself. Yeah, Kerry is probably a little more concerned with deficits than Bush, but his solution would be to raise taxes to balance it, NOT to cut spending.

The No-Child Left Behind act was a bipartisan piece of crap, though it wasn’t near as bad as critics make it out to be. Besides, it was frickin co-sponsored by Kerry’s mentor, Ted Kennedy. Though, as Megan McArdle notes in her endorsement, NCLB does have one thing going for it. The right people hate it (the Teacher’s unions, university professors, Democrats, etc). So, it can’t be all bad I suppose.

McCain-Feingold was backed by Kerry as well, so he gets no points here. Ditto Homeland Security. I know Kerry has griped about the Patriot Act, but he and Edwards VOTED FOR IT. It’s not like Ashcroft is just making it up as he goes. If the Attorney General is abusing it, then impeach him. Senators are supposed to perform oversight after all. I don’t like Homeland Security because I believe a lot of what it tried to accomplish could have been done without a new cabinet post and government department that will have it’s on bureaucratic layer. And I certainly do believe there will be mission creep. While the HSD is worried about terrorism, then that’s fine. But, does anyone doubt they’ll start defining drugs as a threat to the homeland? Or tobacco? Or unregistered firearms, even if they are hunting rifles? I’m not worried about Homeland Security under Bush. I’m worried about it under his successor.

Numbers 8-14 are in the foreign policy realm, Bush’s strongpoint. And they probably display that I’m even more of hawk than Bush. So, obviously it’s not like Kerry would be better. Bush really wanted to “save” the U.N. He wanted the U.N. to succeed on the Iraq question. He wanted to follow through on its promises. After all, Saddam did sign the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War with the U.N. and the U.S. He was the single biggest violator of U.N. rules in decades (if not in it’s history). That may seem like a stretch considering that North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Red China & the old Soviet Union (to name a few) probably are/were just as bad as Saddam. But, they didn’t sign so many agreements promising to do very specific things by dates originally in the early 90s. He violated these agreements repeatedly. No single nation in the U.N.’s history had been such a focal point of U.N. operations. Yet, they chose not to do anything about it, other than to profit off of it through the oil-for-food program. Bush wanted the U.N. to live up to its ideals. He repeatedly challenged it to do so. He gave it every chance, and then some, to seize its self-appointed position as the enforcer of international law. And yet it failed. In fact, it treated the U.S. the rogue nation, the only nation in the history of the U.N. to ever ask its permission for war operations. In dealing with the U.N. we lost valuable time and initiative in the war on terror. The State Department, who is still stuck in a September 10th mentality added to this problem. Colin Powell hasn’t been much help in changing the culture of cynicism in the State Department. This U.N. strategy culminated in the French backstabbing in the Security Council and their constant effort, along with the Germans and Russians in undermining the Iraq war effort. The worst of this when they convinced Turkey to not allow the 4th Infantry to launch from Turkey, thus allowing the border to Syria be wide open for far too long after the war started.

We have had many problems/failures in Iraq (the above Turkey issue being one of the biggest). Did we have enough troops? I don't know. I simply don't know enough about military strategy to know. I suspecte that another 100,000 would have helped out a lot. I don' really know why they didn't use more. I suspect it was to keep units available for other potential world hotspots (i.e. North Korea). But, still, I do not see the need to have 70,000 troops stationed in Germany, a nation that more or less opposes our foreign policy. I do think we should have squashed more decisively the twin-headed monster of Faluja and Iran-backed cleric, al Sadr. We have not had the full stomach for the larger war, and it's out of fear of politics I'm afraid. I sympathize with Bush on this, but it's not really an excuse. And somebody should high up should have lost their job over the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. We could have done better in a lot of areas. We also should be more forthcoming and more repetitive about all the good in Iraq: The many infrastructure projects that benefit the country, all accomplished by the Coalition forces; the early hand-over of power (which the likes of Hillary Clinton said was impossible); the continuing movement towards free national elections (there have been many local elections). I don't post a lot of the negative from Iraq because a) the New York Times is more than happy to do it for me and b) during an election year where I know the alternative (John Kerry) is far worse, I guess my eyes just glazes over. That's not a good thing, but it's hard to take the negative so seriously when I know the positive is being intentionally squelched by the main stream media.

Aboubt Russia: Bush struck a cordial relationship with Vladimir Putin. This could be a long term problem. Putin is showing his dictatorial instincts, which shouldn’t surprise since he’s a former head of the KGB. You think the 9/11 set off an oppressive regime here, you haven’t seen nothing. Russia is shutting down TV stations and newspapers and controlling the flow of information as much as possible in this information age. He is way too cozy with the oligopolies that run the Russia’s economy and are usually run by former communists. And he has stated to the business leaders of Russia that their purpose in life needs to be strengthening the motherland, profits be damned. He has made veiled threats at nationalizing certain industries. This is not a man who we should desire as a partner in the war on terror, except out of absolute necessity. Kerry believes that we have pissed off our allies. The same “allies” I’ve spent the last several paragraphs bitching about. So, he’s clearly not the solution here.

Bush's domestic policy has been a mixture of good and bad. His Bio Ethics panel is made up of "bipartisan" members whose party affiliation may differ, but are in general agreement on the issue they preside over. They believe biotechnologies coming down the pipe are to be feared, regulated and when possible banned, if they offend some religious sensibilities, regardless if the "harm" they predict will be done is all hypothetical. Cloning a full human being is probably unethical as hell. It probably should be illegal. But Bush's panel defines human cloning as just about anything where a PART of a human is lab generated, and they are frankly scared of that. Hell, it kind of scares me to. But, the scariness and precedence of having the ability to clone a healthy heart or limb (or a full human being) is not as scary as the proposition of dying of heart disease or losing a left arm. One is scary in theory. The other is scary because of the reality. As for stem cells, the media has totally distorted his stem cell position. He allowed stem cell research via presidential decree. Or rather he allowed federally funded stem cell research. What he has banned is federal funding of NEW embryonic stem cell research. We have existing strands of embryonic stem cells. He said the funding and research of those strands could go forward. And he has done nothing to ban private research (though, as I stated above, you get they idea he and his Bio Ethics advisors would like to). And he has done nothing to prevent funding for non-embryonic stem cells. So, while a fret over Bush's attitude towards the new fronteir of bio technology, he has done very little to actually hamper the research, despite what you may have heard.

Bush, like any politician has done much political pandering on the domestic front. This is the downside to our compromise driven law making. Sometimes, you have to "buy" votes. I don't like it. But, Senator John Kerry, would be no different, and probably far worse. If their is one thing all Senators specialize in, it is pandering and political kickbacks.

So, yes this entire post was a tease. I think their major problems with George Bush, as a president. However, I can think of nothing, accept maybe stem cell research, that John Kerry would be preferable on. All these gripes, John Kerry would be worse, in some cases only slightly worse and in other cases, worse by an order of magnitude.

Election Run-Up

Well, I got yelled at by a friend of mine for going a week since my last post (which was probably baseball related). Well, I've been watching a lot of baseball. And reading a lot of news. And generally staying pissed off at the Orwellian world we live in where a senior U.N. official leaks a story to the most anti-Bush news organizations in the country in order to influence the election, a story that has more holes than swiss cheese. But, anyway, I'll try to give some links and commentary on what's going on. Speaking of links, these are the must-visit sites for election coverage.

• Real Clear Politics has the round-up of the latest polls and election related news items. Very little commentary. Mostly links and graphs that average out all the big national polls and state polls. It's an indespensible site between now and Tuesday.
  
• Mickey Kaus, my favorite pro-Kerry Kerry hater, does his usual good job of political analysis and spin parsing.
  
• NRO's Battlegrounder blog featuring several posts from bloggers in each important state.
  
• The Command Post Election Coverage.
  
• And, of course, Instapundit.