tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post109806262804763707..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Strange BedfellowsDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1098143683978089902004-10-18T16:54:00.000-07:002004-10-18T16:54:00.000-07:00I think David is right on social issues. It's abun...I think David is right on social issues. It's abundantly clear that this administration is using social policy as a way to consolidate its base (FMA, Abortion, Sex Ed, Faith Based Initiatives, and arguably the PATRIOT act). Kerry espouses far less invasive social policies. For me, that's the selling point, because I've always considered it more important not to interfere in social policy than economic policy. <br /><br />But as for economic policies, I'd be OK with seeing a Kerry tax increase, because I believe two basic things about a hypothetical Kerry administration: it would (1) not be able to pass the proposed massive spending plans w/o significant compromise and (2) all things considered, it would actually spend less than the Bush administration. Kerry's spending plans aren't particularly good, but all things considered, they're the lesser of two evils.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03445497103630902861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1098078959513456832004-10-17T22:55:00.000-07:002004-10-17T22:55:00.000-07:00I think the problem comes in terms of what "small ...I think the problem comes in terms of what "small government conservatism" means. Basically, which is a better manifestation of Small Government, "tax and spend" or "tax cut and spend"? I would say the former, because as Benjamin points out, spending in debt is essentially just forcing a mortgage on America's children. Now, MAYBE it's possible that Kerry would be even worse than Bush IF he had a majority in congress, as you suggest(and you're right that I would like a Democratic Majority). But you and I both know it isn't going to happen. I'm skeptical that the Dems will take back the Senate, and the House is well out of reach. So you can rest rather easy in knowing that the house, at least, is safely in Tom DeLay's hands and Kerry will never be able to pass a spending bill ever. Yes, Kerry's impotence annoys me (though it should thrill you, objectively). But being stuck in the mud is better than careening off a cliff. If voting for impotence annoys you, then consider it a "vote for divided government" or a "vote for accountability."<br /><br />Oh, and "small government conservatism" goes beyond economic issues. It also talks about SOCIAL issues, and FMA is an insult to that tradition.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1098074521916487452004-10-17T21:42:00.000-07:002004-10-17T21:42:00.000-07:00While you do make many valid criticisms of Bush he...While you do make many valid criticisms of Bush here, I don't see how that should prompt one to vote for Kerry. From a small gov't perspective on the race, Bush is bad, but Kerry has to be worse. Kerry has pledged to increase taxes, and he's promised trillions in new spending on everything from health care to homeland security. I do agree that voting for Bush would probably be worse in the short term, but I think it's a bit galling to vote for a candidate specifically because he's impotent. Electing Kerry will prove to the Democratic Party that his spend heavily platform works. Either way, it's a loss, but with Kerry you lose on income taxes and spending if (as I'm sure you hope) he gets a congressional majority. I realize Bush's spending record sucks, and it bugs me. But it doesn't bug me nearly enough to make me vote for anyone else.Randomscrubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907420981269677826noreply@blogger.com