The markets are in a tailspin, for which Bush has to be given major credit, because among other things his decision to impose steel tarrifs, and the completely runaway government spending are major contributory factors.
If Gore were president, the republicans in congress would be fighting for lower spending, instead of voting for more and more spending. Also, they'd fight more against huge new medicare entitlements, which if they become law will not only break the bank, but ultimately severly damage progress in pharma research.
Bush is making a total mess of homeland defence. What is going on in the airports is totally idiotic and disfunctional. Absolutely nothing has been done to reform the FBI etc, which still is incapable, for example, of conceiving that anthrax might be connected to Iraq. There is absolutely no reason to believe any of this would have been handled worse by Gore.
I think the campaign in Afganistan went well, and I'm awaiting further developments. Bush waffled long on the middle east, but maybe he has finally found his way. His most recent speech on Palestine was great. The state department is every bit as bad as it was under Clinton.
Bush's position on cloning is a major problem in my eyes, although I appreciate others differ. We stand on the doorstep of conquering not only cancer, but old age. There is a chance we will do so before I die, which frankly is of considerable interest to me. Bush is doing his level best to prevent this, which is tantamount to sentencing everyone reading this to a possibly needless death.
Bush passed a tax decrease, which is more than Gore would have. But the decrease is so phased-in that it is possibly contributing to the demise of the economy by motivating people to defer income.
On balance, Bush has been mediocre, and its by no means clear that we would be worse off with Gore.
I would like to see a Libertarian as President (not Browne, but one who realizes we have to fight Al Quaeda, there are many.) I don't think it will happen, but since it seems pretty clear in retrospect that we would be about as well off with a democrat as a republican in the white house (presuming the repubs hold at least one house in congress) I don't see much cost in voting for one.
I am curious, Jim, which of these points you disagree with. Surely you don't think Bush has handled fiscal policy or homeland security competently? Answer that, please. And the jury is still out on the wider war. These are the major issues right now, IMO. What is bigger?
I voted for Browne, not that I wanted him for President, but because I could not vote for Bush or Gore.
I wonder if we can get Ron Paul to run?