Posted on 10/29/2004 3:49:52 PM PDT by lancer
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your telephone call yesterday. My muted reaction did not do justice to your eloquent soliloquy on why one should not vote for Bush's reelection. I offer the following thoughts, belatedly.
Although I concur in some of the points you made, ABB is not a good enough reason for me, especially when the alternative is so much worse. Consider:
Kerry has scant executive experience, and despite two decades in the Senate, no record at all of meansurable accomplishment. Rather, he has concentrated on opposing policies and legislation that benefit our country.
Not only did he lie about his service in the Vietnam War, but he was a traitor to his country when he invented wholesale charges of butchery against his fellow servicemen in Vietnam. His actions (while still a member of the USN Reserve?) helped the enemy and helped us lose the war, which was winnable (had both Democratic and Republican administrations had the will to unshackle our military rather than tying one arm behind their backs). His refusal to open his military file to public scrutiny -- to set to rest whether he was or was not dishonorably discharged -- suggests he has something to hide.
He opposed Reagan's policies which sped up the end of the Cold War.
With Dodd, he supported the communist regime in Nicaragua, opposed the liberation of Grenada, and to this day remains favorably disposed toward the Cuban tyrant Castro. (My feelings with respect to the Castro regime are highly personal.)
He opposed ABM deployments in Europe, SDI, and the first Gulf war.
He has opposed adequately funding our intelligence agencies.
He voted against funding the current Iraq campaign.
His promise to continue prosecuting what he has called the "wrong war in the wrong place and the wrong time" rings hollow, as does his assertion that he will successfully woo the French and Germans into his orbit, because he has a "plan" to do so.
He has insulted Allawi and our allies in Iraq, and ignored the fact that there are 28,000 non-US foreign troops in that country working with us.
He is as wrong on Israel and Palestine as the Bush administration, offering no improvement on the current policies (or lack of same). That Arafat has publicly endorsed him is hardly reassuring.
He seems to support Kyoto now, even though the Senate had overwhelmingly dismissed it before the Bush adminstration formally withdrew. In supporting Kyoto he ignores the one-sided aspects of the treaty that would favor certain polluting developing countries (like China) at the expense of the US. (This is why the Senate opposed it.)
He is UN-centered, which in addition to being quixotic, ignores the realities of that tarnished institution, including a Human Rights Commission recently headed by Libya and including Cuba and Saddam's Iraq; a Security Council whose decisions are rendered meaningless by the veto (held by each of the permanent members, who ought in any event now to include major players like India, or Japan, or Brazil, or Germany); an administration that as long ago as 1993 was declared to be dysfunctional and wasteful in the extreme (by the Thornburg Commission), which has refused to reform, and which now faces the taint of corruption in the administering of the Iraq sanctions program.
He has unwholesome foreign affairs advisers, such as Holbrooke, one of the most disliked of our current crop of diplomats -- and no match for the likes of Powell and Rice and a team of professionals.
He has a mixed record on trade, now advocating "fair" rather than "free" market arrangements. This is a bow to organized labor, and a code word for imposing restrictions on imports. (Bush's steel tariff was terrible, but the current administration has otherwise been moving forward.)
He is wrong on how to deal with North Vietnam and wrong on dealing with Iran. He has opposed tort reform - with devastating implications for rising medical costs (even if psychiatrists aren't affected), greater access to vaccines, etc. His selection of a charlatan tort lawyer as his running mate reflects on his judgment.
He disguises his advocacy of socialized medicine in opaque rhetoric, and if we think the flu vaccine fiasco is bad, imagine what direct government management would mean for broad prescription drug coverage for all (at what cost?!)
He favors redistribution of wealth and opposes tax relief for the "rich," forgetting that it is the wealthy who pay disproportionately high taxes (except for the filthy rich, like his wife, who gets by with a tax rate of 12%, by taking advantage of every loophole available to the rich), and that it is they who are the ones whose investing stimulates the economy. He doesn't understand what the "real" JFK understood - that tax relief stimulates an economy. His approach would have risked turning the recession bequeathed Bush by Clinton into a depression.
He believes the government, not the individual, is the one best able to decide how to spend your money.
His "plans" for our economy really are Voodoo Economics: the additional mandates he promises would only balloon the deficit.
He is wrong on opening the door (a crack) to privatization of Social Security. It has worked in countries like Chile. Why not here? He employs scare tactics by lying to the elderly about Bush's supposed intentions to dismantle Social Security. (Is his position determined by the all-powerful entrenched federal employees' union, that sees in privatization the loss of featherbed jobs?)
He has lied to the country's youth about Bush's supposed intention to reinstitute the draft.
He is wrong on opposing medical savings accounts, one of the most innovative aspects of the "ownership economy" offered by the Republicans.
He lies when he tries to blame Bush for the "loss" of millions of jobs, when it is a combination of the recession, technology, and globalization that caused the temporary loss of jobs. Unemployment is now lower than when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996, and lower than the average for the past 30 years.
He is wrong on ANWAR - which would affect only a tiny percentage of that pristine area, and would not only benefit Alaska but the US.
He has ducked explaining his position on same-sex marriage.
He has consistently misrepresented Bush on stem cell research. Though I prefer his stated approach to stem cell research and applauded his earlier position on gun control (before he decided to try to become one of the boys by brandishing his shotgun) and his stand on abortion, those are not enough to overcome his myriad failings in other domestic and almost all foreign concerns.
He is in the pocket of the teachers' unions (they accounted for 10% of the delegates to the Dem. convention), and so opposes education reforms that would really benefit minorities and position us to be fully competitive in the 21st century.
He has the look and sound of a gold-digger, in the Senate has a reputation for being a loner (not a team player), and together with his running mate has shown himself to be of questionable character by trying to make political hay out of the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter.
I regret that the Democrats picked this man as their candidate. They could have done so much better.
---------------------------
The irony is that neither your vote against Bush in New York, nor mine against Kerry in Connecticut, will in any way determine the outcome of this election. So we are, in effect, engaging in wheel spinning. That is a pity.
What seems likely, and more than a pity, is that next Tuesday will usher in a period of uncertainty as to the outcome. I'm sure we agree, at least, in hoping that the results of the election are not obscured for long.
Happy Election Day!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.