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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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.