Algore would still be sitting in committees with the UN, joining them in critizing the US and apologizing for whatever we did to "deserve" 9-11. It is doubtful he ever would have dropped the first bomb on Afghanistan out of concern for the effect on the environment. By now, Algore would have signed us on to the Kyoto treaty and the UN's International Criminal Court. He would probably be helping the UN's latest effort to tax American citizens (according to the UN, it is the rich countries fault that poor countries are poor, and therefore we should all be taxed in order to "aid" them).
I do, however, agree with you that Bush is not doing a good job of controlling spending -- but you are mistaken if you think a democRAT would be spending less.
You are also correct about the farce of airport security, but never forget that political correctness is the democRAT's brew -- no racial profiling, even when it is necessary for national security!!
So I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, and will not throw my vote away in an effort to "teach them a lesson".
The Republicans have proven themselves to be empty suits. They are much better at complaining about runaway spending, than controlling it. They are superb at offering an alternative to big spending, but when elected they offer up big spending.
Choosing Democrats over Republicans, or vice versa, because of party label, is as much a wasted vote as one for a third party . The Parties are expert at setting up the other as fall guy, and of course evil, while gladhanding in the barrooms with the opposition, and yucking it up at our expense.
Trying to elect third parties will not work, I know. The only thing to do is vote against any incumbent no matter the party affiliation. No one will do this of course, it is only the other guys representative that is the problem.
We are in an impossible situation, impossible for liberty to survive unless we can change course, and impossible for us to change course. The nation is rudderless, and headed for the reef.
With the 94 elections, and now a supposed conservative in the WH, it should be the dawn of new times, but we get the samo-samo. Either the Republicans have been lying to its supporters all this time, or they are so inept, as to prove themselves unworthy of leadership positions.......period
That is ridiculous. You forget that Clinton bombed Yugoslavia practially into the stone age on far less provocation. The bombing of Yugoslavia did severe environmental damage, much worse than anything in afganistan, because chemical plants etc were bombed.
The democrats are somewhat opposed to the war on terror now because Bush is president and ostensibly for it. If Gore were president, he'd be all in favor of the war on terror,which is great politics and greatly expands the powers of the president. The opposition of the dems to the WOT is completely analagous to the support of the repubs for pork-- if it was the other guy in power they'd change their tune.
By now, Algore would have signed us on to the Kyoto treaty and the UN's International Criminal Court
Without a doubt, Gore would have been in favor of these, just as Clinton was. But under Clinton the Senate voted 98-0 or something like that against the Kyoto treaty, and no way would it pass under a Gore admin. Likewise the criminal court would no way pass. It takes 60 votes to pass the senate, and neither bill would have a ghost of a chance.
I do, however, agree with you that Bush is not doing a good job of controlling spending -- but you are mistaken if you think a democRAT would be spending less.
You are simply naive about the process. Gore would no doubt be proposing more spending, but the republicans in congress would be resisting, instead of increasing pork as now. Clinton spent less, and Gore would as well, however reluctantly.
You are also correct about the farce of airport security, but never forget that political correctness is the democRAT's brew -- no racial profiling, even when it is necessary for national security!!
That is the line they talk, but its far from clear they would be acting that way. Anyway, as I said, they could not possibly be worse than Bush has.
You are simply naive about the process of gov't. The repubs talk a game of less spending and the dems one of more. But none of them have any principles at all, and what comes out depends mostly on politics. If Gore were in the white house, the repubs in congress would be acting much more like republicans. Instead of constant compromises, we'd have more gridlock. Homeland security could not be handled worse than now, spending would undoubtedly be less, and I strongly suspect the WOT would have been prosecuted more aggressively, not less.