Is there really much difference between Bush and Kerry?

[El Barto]

I'd appreciate specific reasoned answers here.

Will who is President really affect the ecomomy much?

Will our defense against terrorism be all that different?

Since Congress will still be divided closely, what laws would pass that don't have bipartisan support anyway?

I know everyone has their preference, but is it going to matter that much to the quality of your life, who happens to be President?

Serious and well-reasoned replies appreciated.

[elwoodblues]

I have a suspicion that if nobody ever knew presidential election outcomes (of nearly any presidential election) you wouldn't be able to tell who was in office merely by what they did.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Since Congress will still be divided closely, what laws would pass that don't have bipartisan support anyway?

With bills that pass by a narrow margin, there will be a difference based upon the use of the president's veto power. Each will be more likely to veto bills that are contrary to his stance on the social issues.

[ChristinaB]

one word:

Scalia

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Last I checked, the president can only nominate replacement justices, not fire current ones. Like it or not, Scalia's there for life.

[ChristinaB]

I guess one word wasn't enough. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bush said he wanted to appoint new justices in the style of Scalia. John Kerry will not.

Scalia is there for life, but he can be out-voted.

[jcx]

If you could stare into their hearts, I think you'd find 2 very different men. But if Kerry wins I think you'd scarcely notice the difference. On Iraq, even if Kerry wins he cannot simply pull our troops out, like it or not we are there and we are committed. Before someone dismisses this, let me explain. If we left Iraq would splinter and there would be total anarchy. Portions of it would likely end up vassal states to Iran. Turkey would find an independent Kurdish state intolerable (Due to their large, restless Kurdish population) and would likely invade immediately. Without the buffer of Mad Dog Hussien between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs may give serious thought to an invasion to claim Mecca and Medina, as they consider the House of Saud to be corrupt and in bed with the West. I don't need to tell you what this would do to the price of oil. But I digress.

On domestic issues, I think you would be hard pressed to find much of a difference (Save the Bush tax cuts). Both Bush and Kerry have us on the road to Socialism - The only difference being Bush is taking the scenic route, and Kerry would take the expressway. The result is the same. Bush has:

1. Signed a Prescription Drug bill that put us much farther down the road to Socialized medicine and will cost far more than advertised.

2. Refused to do anything about the illegal immigrant problem (Indeed, his "Guest Worker" proposal has been interpreted as amnesty and caused many more illegals than normal to flood across the border).

3. Let Ted Kennedy write an Education Reform bill which he signed like a lemming.

4. Has to date not vetoed one bill increasing spending.

I could list other items, but you get the point.

Bush is a Rockefeller Republican at best, and certainly no conservative. I believe that it may even be better for the conservative agenda if Kerry is elected as a stalemate may at least slow down the speed of increased government (If for no other reason than spite between the parties). Also, Bush being reelected this year opens the door for the Lizard Queen in 2008. The main reason Democrats can't stand Bush is he is a religious man, and the secularists despise this about him. The certainly can't point to his record as a reason not to like him.

The short answer is, there's less than 10% difference between these two and they way they would govern. I won't be voting for either.

[benfranklin]

If you look at recent history, say the last 100 years, you will find that the country does best (jobs, economy, etc.) when one party is in the White House and the other party controls Congress. Doesn't matter which is which. Basically, they spend all their time fighting each other, and don't get much done in the way of legislation and politics, which is good for the country.

I wouldn't walk across the street to vote for Bush or Kerry. But assuming the Republicans control Congress after the next election, I'd prefer Kerry in the White House.

[Zeno]

Scalia is my favorite Supreme Court Justice. He is, to put it succinctly, The Mouth of God.

In the early thirties FDR, who actually was God, at least for awhile, had great difficulties with the Supreme Court when He was trying to ram through some New Deal legislation and other nonsensical laws that the Holy Court deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure of the details but FDR wanted to fire, replace, assassinated or otherwise circumvent the Court as He saw them as obstructers to His grand vision of saving the US, the world, the solar system and a few odd galaxies, along with padding the pockets of associates and comrades in arms as it were. There was some large-scale hullabaloo. No literate blood was shed but FDR got his comeuppance, I think.

Possible lessons in the above tale - None that I care to elaborate on. Others can if the spirit so moves them.

Le Misanthrope

[andyfox]

Scalia does indeed think he's the mouth of god. Read his angry refusal to recuse himself from judging the vice president simply because he knows the veep will need him to gain a 5-4 decision.

FDR, who was indeed god, did indeed try to pack the Supreme Court to render is a rubber stamp for his policies. Whatever comeuppance he got, he was still reelected three more times.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure of the details but FDR wanted to fire, replace, assassinated or otherwise circumvent the Court

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that...FDR decided he would just appoint more people (who agreed with him) to the Supreme Court. The constitution does not give a number for the total number of justices so he thought he could appoint additional people to dominate those who opposed his legislation. Tricky - certainly. Legal - probably.

The phrase "a switch in time saves 9" was used to describe the move.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Bush being reelected this year opens the door for the Lizard Queen in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Once the queen bee bitch gets her lips around the dick of government she will suck it dry, swallow, bite off the member and eat it, castrate the body, then set herself up as the new Goddess of Democracy. Even Richard Nixon is a wimp compared to the megalomania of Queen Hilary.

I am already outlining plans for my escape into Asia or Mexico if she is elected.

-Zeno

[adios]

Since the Democrats introduced the tactic of fillubustering judicial nominees you can expect the Republicans to respond in kind if Kerry gets elected. There hasn't been one Supreme Court vacancy under Dubya. If Kerry get's elected there probably will be a vacancy during his administration. The Republicans will certainly play "hardball" with any Kerry nominated candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy. This is why the Democratic tactic of fillibustering judicial nominees was short sighted IMO. The Republicans will probably have a majority in both Houses of Congress (they only need a majority in the Senate) again so they can just outright reject anyone they don't like. It used to be if someone that was nominated was qualified for the position they would get it. Not anymore IMO since the Democrats politicized the process.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Will who is President really affect the ecomomy much?

Will our defense against terrorism be all that different?

Since Congress will still be divided closely, what laws would pass that don't have bipartisan support anyway?

I know everyone has their preference, but is it going to matter that much to the quality of your life, who happens to be President?



[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Well, it appears that no one can give a good reason why it matters whether Bush or Kerry gets elected. (Afterall, is a change in the Supreme Court going to have any effect on me personally?)</font>

My challenge remains - tell me why it makes a difference.

[Zeno]

Below is an excerpt from an essay by H.L. Mencken that appeared in a book of epic theological pretension stupendously titled, ‘Living Philosophies’, that appeared by celestial fiat in about the year of Our Lord, 1930. I offer it in solemn prayer that it edifies the assembled congregation.

************************************************** ******************
My acquaintance among them [the so-called intellectuals], in most countries of Europe, is somewhat large, and so I can’t escape their agonies. Everywhere they fret themselves to death over the problem of government. Everywhere they plan to bring in Utopia by turning this gang out and putting that gang in. Everywhere they believe in wizards and messiahs. It seems to me that we in America – that is, those of us who have become immune to rhetoric – have got beyond that naïveté, and that we are the sounder and the happier for it. Reconciling ourselves to the incurable swinishness of government, and to the inevitable stupidity and roguery of its agents, we discover that both stupidity and roguery are bearable – nay, that there is in them a certain assurance against something worse……..

The principle is surely not new in the world: everyone ought to know by this time that a mountebank, thinking only of tomorrow’s cakes, is far safer with power in his hands than a prophet and martyr, his eyes fixed fanatically upon the rewards beyond the grave. So a prudent man prefers Hoover to Stalin or Mussolini, or even to Ramsay MacDonald, a Scotsman and hence a fanatic. No doubt Al Smith world have been better, if only on Burke’s theory that politics is at its best when it is most closely adjusted, not to reason, but to human nature……..

Here I do not argue that mountebanks are more admirable than honest men; I merely argue that, in such fields as those of politics and religion – to which, of course, the master quackery of pedagogy ought to be added – they are socially safer and more useful. The question before us is a practical one: how are we to get through life with a maximum of entertainment and a minimum of pain? I believe that the answer lies, at least in part, in ridding solemn ponderosities of their solemn ponderosity, in putting red noses on all the traditional fee-faw-fo-fums.

That enterprise, by the cunning of the Fathers, we have been able to carry further in the United States than it is carried anywhere else. Do strong men blubber against the outrage of prohibition? Then smell their breaths so see how real their grievance is. Are there protests against the clubs of the police? Then compare a few amiable bumps on the head to a quart of Mussolini’s castor oil. Do jobholders consume the substance of the people? Then ask the next Englishman you meet to show you his income tax bill. And are the high places of the land held by trashy and ignoble fellows, bent only upon their own benefit? Then take a look at he scoundrels who constitute the state of France.

************************************************** *******************
I submit, El Barto, that the above answers all of your questions. If you feel it does not, then you need to rephrase the questions to fit the above answer. I sincerely hope this helps you out of any difficulties you may be wrestling with.

This post is dedicated to my good friend and colleague in pedagogy, John Cole.


Le Misanthrope

[KJS]

Do you think the country would be different if Gore had won? Would there be attacks on abortion rights? A gay marriage ban being discussed by the President? Would there have been a cadre of imperialistic folks in the administration (Wolfie, Rummy, Cheney) gunning for a war with Iraq and lying about why?

Now that you my bias...

I can't address much on the economic issue, because I am not educated about economics.

I would say that for certain that there would be vast differences socially because I think this President is in a small minority on many social issues due to the fact that he is born again Christian. I also feel that he has surrounded himself with many people which have far from the center positions socially, like Ashcroft, and in terms of foreign policy, like the neoconservatives listed above.

It is my opinion that if Kerry wins and you (hypothetical here) did a quantitative analysis of things he did that appealed to the center and things he did that appealed to a liberal minority, then compared that to a similar one for Bush (substituting conservative for liberal), you would find that Bush did more to appeal to the people on the far end of the spectrum. That's just my opinion, and I am thinking a lot about comparing Bush and Clinton in formulating it. Inasmuch as Bush does things (like push for late term abortion bans and for a ban on gay marriage) that are divisive because they take away rights based on moral principles, I think he is different than a liberal candidate. Ditto for the USAPatriot Act, which I think would not have been extreme if someone like Ashcroft were not the AG.

One thing I have little doubt about is that the regulatory environment will be very different if Kerry wins. Bush is very much in the back pocket of oil and other energy companies (evidenced by the Supreme Court case discussed in this thread). I suspect Kerry is much more "green" that Bush and would expect much in terms of clean air, energy policy, clean water, environmental protection and species protection to be different if he wins. There is a lot a President can do in these areas without having to go through Congress.

I agree with others that judicial appointments are an arena where who is President makes all the difference. And it goes far beyond the Supreme Court.

In terms of quality of life, I find having a President like Bush, who is very self-righteous and not against painting issues with a wide moral brush, to be an annoyance. It annoys me to see him talk, because I find him inarticulate and not so bright, which is scary considering his power, and the tone of the people he has surrounded himself with is very grating, as is their emphasis on patriotism at all costs and a McCarthyesque sense of loyalty above all. So, I think my life would be better if someone smarter, more articulate and less divisive were in office, because I would not be so infuriated by them.

KJS

[ThaSaltCracka]

Are democrats really thinking about electing her?
I find the thought of a woman being president to be very scary, can you imagine the nagging? I think if it was a republican, she would probably be some sort of super stuck up bitch, and if she was a democrat, as the strangle hold controlling soccer mom who belongs to every interest group she can get her hands on.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I would say that for certain that there would be vast differences socially because I think this President is in a small minority on many social issues due to the fact that he is born again Christian.

Huh? If gay marriage were put to a nationwide vote today, it would lose by better than a 2-1 margin, and the country is evenly split on abortion, though if it were a yes/no question, it would likely remain legal.

Evangelical Christians are a major portion of the population in many parts of the country.

So, I think my life would be better if someone smarter, more articulate and less divisive were in office, because I would not be so infuriated by them.

I myself would not be less infuriated by Kerry than by Bush. I'd just be infuriated by different things. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
It annoys me to see him talk, because I find him inarticulate and not so bright, which is scary considering his power

[/ QUOTE ]
Many intelligent people are terrible public speakers, myself included /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
One thing I have little doubt about is that the regulatory environment will be very different if Kerry wins. Bush is very much in the back pocket of oil and other energy companies (evidenced by the Supreme Court case discussed in this thread). I suspect Kerry is much more "green" that Bush and would expect much in terms of clean air, energy policy, clean water, environmental protection and species protection to be different if he wins. There is a lot a President can do in these areas without having to go through Congress.


[/ QUOTE ]
They both are in interest groups pockets.

[ QUOTE ]
It is my opinion that if Kerry wins and you (hypothetical here) did a quantitative analysis of things he did that appealed to the center and things he did that appealed to a liberal minority, then compared that to a similar one for Bush (substituting conservative for liberal), you would find that Bush did more to appeal to the people on the far end of the spectrum. That's just my opinion,

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they would be about the same. Each man has one or two agendas which are aimed totally at their far left/right followers, however to actually do the job as president you have to appeal to the center more than anything. Many people credit that for the reason Clinton was elected and then re-elected. Bush is pretty center if you really stand back and look at him.

[KJS]

I agree that many intelligent people are bad at public speaking. They probably did better than a C average at university though.

Are you saying that there won't be a difference in environmental protection and pollution if Kerry wins? I would have to disagree with that, but would agree Kerry is not above being influenced by lobbyists.

Bush himself may appear centrist but it is my opinion that he was very crafty in the way he appointed some far right people in his cabinet to do the dirty work for the far end of the GOP, while salvaging any reputation he himself has of being a centrist. Would Kerry do the same? Not sure, but my gut says no. But I am a lefty, so would not react as strongly to someone acting left as I do to someone like Ashcroft, who does things like hold prayer sessions in a government office.

KJS

PS. Do you play live poker around Seattle? I just moved back here and haven't been since the "poker explosion." I'm curious how the scene has changed. Seems like a lot more mini casinos have poker rooms than used to.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that there won't be a difference in environmental protection and pollution if Kerry wins? I would have to disagree with that, but would agree Kerry is not above being influenced by lobbyists.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the enviroment is neccesarily a left issue, most people want clean yada-yada-yada, but I would agree the left push it harder than the right.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush himself may appear centrist but it is my opinion that he was very crafty in the way he appointed some far right people in his cabinet to do the dirty work for the far end of the GOP, while salvaging any reputation he himself has of being a centrist. Would Kerry do the same? Not sure, but my gut says no. But I am a lefty, so would not react as strongly to someone acting left as I do to someone like Ashcroft, who does things like hold prayer sessions in a government office.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Kerry would do the same, it is an easy way for Presidents to keep their hands clean.

[ QUOTE ]
PS. Do you play live poker around Seattle? I just moved back here and haven't been since the "poker explosion." I'm curious how the scene has changed. Seems like a lot more mini casinos have poker rooms than used to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I do, or atleast use to pretty frequently. There an absurd amount of small casino's around with poker. Most of the action is pretty soft, but from what I have heard the security is pretty soft at the northend ones.