Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (3313)	10/20/2000 7:43:49 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 10042

I have to say after reading the league stuff, I am pretty much where I already was. I will go through my reasons for leaning toward the Democrats: I like public education, I am totally against vouchers- in our huge multicultural society one of the few places where we are forced to come together and learn how to relate to each other, is in the public schools. I want public money to be focused on the public schools- so that they will be places where the majority of our citizens become well educated with their fellow citizens of every race, religion, and socioeconomic group. I accept that not everyone wishes to be publicly educated- but we must make a value judgment with public money, and in my opinion it should be spent on institutions that bring all people together, not on institutions that encourage separatism. Further, as relates to education, because of the diversity in our culture, no religious instruction should take place in school for ANY religion. All children should be able to come to school with their faith safely tucked inside them. Subject matter in school should be objective and non-sectarian. The theory of evolution should be taught and children should know what theory means. The Christian Jewish Biblical explanation for creation is not appropriate in public schools. There should be no encouragement for prayer in the public schools. On the environment, again I lean toward the Democratic view of higher standards for air and water purity, and I would like to see open space preserved, more national parks, more attention to alternative energy sources, etc etc. Medicare- I don't agree with any political party on this. We are very wasteful (imo) in using the bulk of our health care dollars on the last few months of life. I see no purpose to that. I would like to see patient sufferring minimized but I do not like to think my tax dollars are going to heroic measures for people who are critically ill and have no hope of recovery. I would like to see medicare reformed- and see it offer a great deal more in the way of preventive medicine and less in the way of heroic measures. Internationally I do not agree to involving the US overseas except where international borders are at issue- and where the issues are clearly defines and our national interest is at stake- so according to the league I would lean toward the Republicans on this. I do not think free trade is a very good way to go when the rest of the world is not playing by that rule. I am truly worried about the vast outflow of cash to China- we have a severe imbalance there and it worries me. Of course since I am sort of anti- free trade this again causes me to lean toward the Democrats. Social Security- you shouldn't get it if you don't need it, but you should get your money back. Social Security should kick in at a later age- when it was first proposed the median age of death was very close to 65. Of course the median age of death has been pushed back- so the age to collect social security must be also- 70 at the very least. No one wants to do this. I can't blame them- those seniors are powerful. They are a lot more powerful, for example, than children- who have no lobby- so the old folks get a lot of benefits- but is that sensible? I would argue no. It is the young on whose shoulders all those old people will be standing. Those kids will need to work darned hard to put enough money into the pot to keep the older folks checks rolling in- since we all know there is not stash of cash for these programs. I am prochoice, and so again that forces me toward the Democrats.

To: Rambi who wrote (3313)	10/20/2000 8:32:55 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 10042

This article likens GWBush to JFK....says "when Talk is Cheap, George Bush wins on substance.... usnews.com U.S. News 10/23/00 By Michael Barone When talk is cheap Like JFK in 1960, George Bush is winning on substance The two candidates met in a decisive debate. The challenger, relatively inexperienced but from one of his party's famous families, showed a mastery of detail and a sense of command against the incumbent vice president of an administration that voters were mostly pleased with. It was said that the challenger won because of cosmetics or personality. But more fundamental factors underlay his victory. The debate in question could be George W. Bush's triumph over Al Gore in Winston-Salem October 11. But it could also be John F. Kennedy's vanquishing of Richard Nixon in 1960. Nixon was ill at ease, trying to be something other than himself. Again and again he let the challenger frame the issues, conceding that he sought the same ends but differed only on the means. Kennedy's victory in November was narrow. But it reflected the fundamental strengths of his candidacy. One was the public's preference for a more active government and, therefore, the Democratic Party. The other was the feeling among Catholics that they were fully American and, so, entitled to equal consideration. George W. Bush has not won the election yet. But a Bush victory now seems much more possible, and not just because he has a more agreeable personality or fewer irritating characteristics. There are two fundamental factors that could help Bush accomplish the supposedly unlikely feat of defeating the candidate of an incumbent party in a time of peace and prosperity. Those two factors put him in a position to excel in this debate and set Gore a much more difficult task. Sighs and heaves. The first of these factors is that we are in an era when voters yearn for consensus and dislike confrontation. The results are plain in election after election. In 1996 voters re-elected Bill Clinton and the incumbent Congress. In 1998, for the first time in at least a half-century, incumbent House members of both parties saw their percentages rise. Bush is consensus minded, and he governed in Texas by forging broad coalitions of Republicans and Democrats. Gore is confrontation minded and legislatively was something of a lone wolf. Bush is running on a platform that contemplates bipartisan consensus on issues like education, Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Gore, having dithered until his convention between running as a "new Democrat" or an "old Democrat," chose the latter and proclaims, "I will fight for you." That contemplates bitter partisan encounters in a House that will be closely divided whichever party wins and a Senate in which neither party will be close to the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. Gore's overaggressiveness and sighs and heaves in the October 3 debate provoked such a negative reaction that he had to squelch his basic nature last week. He looked like a muzzled dog. He repeated only once his (wildly inaccurate) attack on Bush's tax program as giving too much relief to the top 1 percent of earners. He launched only one sustained attack on Bush's Texas record. Like Nixon in 1960, the incumbent vice president again and again conceded that he agreed with his challenger–and thus helped the challenger show the sense of mastery and command that voters want in a president. The second fundamental factor that tilts the playing field toward Bush this year is the fact that voters today, unlike in 1960, do not want bigger government but want government to give them more choices: They prefer choice to command–by 58 to 32 percent, in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. Gore was widely praised for his convention speech promising that he would stand up for "the people against the powerful." But that seems now to have been a good speech for a losing strategy. Gore solidified his base and established a temporary lead over Bush. But as Bush kept hammering at the theme that he would give voters more choice and Gore would give them more government, a theme he raised in both debates and has stressed in TV ads, voters have come to see Gore as the big-government candidate and have come to prefer the choices Bush would provide in education, Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs. Even Gore's attacks on the oil companies have not paid off; for all the hoopla over his release of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, polls show Bush even with or ahead of Gore on oil issues. At one point near the end of the debate Gore protested wanly, "In fact, I'm for shrinking government." It was a recognition that the rest of his message is out of line with the underlying current of public opinion. If Bush wins this election, it will be said that it was a triumph of personality, because he was the more likeable candidate. But, as in 1960, and even if it turns out to be just as close, a victory for the challenger has deeper roots. Gore's confrontation-mindedness and push for bigger government are in line with the majority of his congressional party. Bush's consensus-mindedness and push for government reform are typical of the Republican governors who have won high approval across the nation. Accidents can affect and sometimes determine elections. But do not ignore that there may be something more significant at work. © U.S.News & World Report Inc. All rights reserved. Disclaimer \| Privacy Policy