Kerry as President (Earth to conservatives! Time to face reality!)

Town Hall ^ | February 28, 2004 | Herbert London

[quidnunc]

As unlikely as it may be, consider the possibility that John Kerry is the next president of the United States.  What are the likely policy shifts should this occur?  How would Kerry be different from President Bush?

Although these questions are speculative, the likely outcomes are easily predictive.

Based on Kerry’s positions expressed in the Senate and on the campaign trail his stance is known and presumably would serve to guide his policy prescriptions.

While Kerry did vote for the war in Iraq, he voted against the appropriations for that nation’s rehabilitation.  During the campaign, Kerry continually noted that this nation cannot cut and run from Iraq, but he believes the situation should be “internationalized.”  That is a euphemism for greater involvement of the U.N.

What Kerry does not note is the utter failure of the U.N. to play a systematic and coherent role in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.  Moreover, Germany and France, the nations Kerry contends we should have cultivated for the war effort are vehemently opposed to U.S. hegemony in the region.  And if recent accounts are at all accurate, the leaders of these nations have been compromised by financial arrangements with Saddam Hussein.

Yet this position is consistent with his impulse for multilateralism in general.  Kerry is persuaded the United States should be encouraging a world community of interests, one that recognizes the importance of alliances.

What he overlooks is that most western European states are eager to challenge America’s world dominance.  They consider multilateralism the ropes that can subdue an American Gulliver.  Without the military means to pursue their interests, European states rely solely on diplomacy, which, as the prelude to war in Iraq indicated, has its limitations.

-snip-

[Triple Word Score]

The article does not address the War on Terror or the Supreme Court.

Those are the most crucial two problems for all conservatives and moderates to consider when making a decision about voting in November 2004.

Without a liberal Supreme Court, America will not lose its sovereignty. With a liberal Supreme Court, America will lose everything in a very short time. There are crucial cases that will hit SCOTUS next year on many things near and dear to our hearts. One of them is whether or not American law can be subjugated to an international court. Do we want Bush appointees ruling on that, or Kerry's? It's that simple.

The connection between Kerry's positions and our sovereignty is not as direct as you think--until you consider the Supreme Court.

[buffyt]

"It is also likely Kerry would be inclined to support the International Criminal Court even though some of the world’s most tyrannical states are members. What these concerns add up to is a Democratic leader inclined to consider international before national interests."

'Nuff said!

[jmstein7]

Zot?

[Triple Word Score]

Pity we can't zot Kerry. But his mouth keeps moving, and treason keeps coming out of it.

[jpf]

I just know that I like Bush in the White House because in a moment of decision or crisis he'll be thinking about what's best for the United States. John Kerry,on the other hand, would be thinking to himself, "Gee what would Jacques Chirac do?"

[kcar]

At the risk of starting WWV, Kerry as inept blowhard POTUS with a Republican dominated House and Senate doesn't sound like the end of the world as we know it. Maybe it would re-ignite that time-tested friend of taxpayers known as "gridlock".

Republican-domination of all branches of government has not yet even threatened to yield lower taxes or government control. Fancy that: Lord Acton said something pertinent to say about that I think.

Why not make W sweat a bit and make him court us for a little while? Who want's whose vote? Work for it!

[quidnunc]

kcar wrote: At the risk of starting WWV, Kerry as inept blowhard POTUS with a Republican dominated House and Senate doesn't sound like the end of the world as we know it. Maybe it would re-ignite that time-tested friend of taxpayers known as "gridlock". Republican-domination of all branches of government has not yet even threatened to yield lower taxes or government control. Fancy that: Lord Acton said something pertinent to say about that I think. Why not make W sweat a bit and make him court us for a little while? Who want's whose vote? Work for it!

You're assuming that the GOP can hold Congress.

I'm not willing to make that assumption.

[Triple Word Score]

He knows we don't want Kerry.

If it weren't for the Supreme Court appointments that are definitely going to have to happen, I might agree with you, but the lives of millions of Americans depend on those appointments.

I don't have to agree with President Bush on everything to know that I disagree emphatically with Kerry on everything I've heard him say. If the left had anointed Lieberman we might be in for a rough time, because at least he made it clear he wouldn't sell us to Al-Qaeda.

[My2Cents]

Had Kerry been President on 9/11/01, he would have turned investigation of the destruction and death of at the World Trade Center over to the NY District Attorney.

[jpf]

No one dominates the Senate unless they have 60 or more votes.

Second, Bush HAS lowered taxes.

Third, funny I thought fighting terrorism and cutting taxes was his way of trying to win my vote.

[kcar]

Yeah, that's my assumption - GOP will control House at a minimum. Actually I don't really see a way Bush can lose against an anti-war hippie from the 70's post 9-11 hailing as a Kennedy-backed MA liberal. Just can't see the theatre here. Nevertheless, don't see a plausible reason for conservatives to reflexively spread thier legs at the first Democrats-might-win scare tactic.

Sweat, Rove, sweat...

[My2Cents]

***Ping***

[reformedliberal]

Agreed. If Kerry won, the enthusiasm of the Dem base would sweep in at the least, several more Dem House members, Daschle would win and maybe we would lose another Senate seat, giving the Dems the ability to roll the rest of the Republicans in the Senate.

Gridlock is a myth, w/a Dem POTUS and a tie in the Senate w/a Dem VP. That could be Hillary. Remember we have several RINOS who will always vote w/the Dems.

All the coyness of the right wing does is encourage the Dems and Hillary, IMO.

I also doubt W is sweating the true conservatives. He is doing what is right for the entire country. He doesn't follow polls, but if you take a look at today's Rassmussen,
his approval is at 53 and 55% of the electorate thinks he will win.

This election is too important for games. We also need a real majority in the Senate, not just for the near term, but looking ahead to 2008.

[raloxk]

"Republican-domination of all branches of government has not yet even threatened to yield lower taxes or government control"

Where have you been????

there were TWO tax cuts. marginal rates were reduced, capital gains and dividend taxs rates cut. Oh Man!!!!!

[edger]

Lowering taxes while spending is going through the roof is nothing to brag about. Once the money is spent, the damage is done. Whether the money is recovered by taxes, by borrowing, or by stealing is inconsequential---the damage has been done.

[I'm ALL Right!]

EARTH TO DIE-HARD LIBS:

Not all libs are in your camp! My eco-friendly, pro-choice, women's rights activist, democratic sister-in-law is in the BUSH camp! Says she cannot find anything GOOD about Mr. John Kerry. Says he's of the same ILK as Hillary! I think she wont be alone in her beliefs.

[kcar]

If you cut taxes without spending, you're just spinning yarns. If you fight against demons abroad, and (possibly) allow demons domestic to renew the AWB, you're shadow dancing as far as I am concerned, and my concern for foreign developments is inversely related to the protection of my domestic liberties.

Without mistake Bush is my man and my hero, provided he doesn't assume too much and forget his base.

[My2Cents]

Nevertheless, don't see a plausible reason for conservatives to reflexively spread thier legs at the first Democrats-might-win scare tactic.

Well, consider this: President Kerry making up to four appointments to the US Supreme Court. If he's elected, you can kiss the conservative movement goodbye, as we'll all be dead before there's another conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Pres. Kerry will do irreparable damage that will last at least for a generation.