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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (4064)	8/12/2003 12:27:36 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 10965

The smart money is still easily on President Bush for 2004, mainly because a substantial majority of the electorate trusts him with our national security at a time when national security is paramount. Beyond his handling of the War on Terror and homeland security, and his tax policies and judicial nominations, he has disappointed conservatives on more than a handful of significant issues. Even apart from defense, he has been a big spender in general, and specifically on Medicare entitlements and federal education. Democrats would have been much worse, but we expect better from Republicans in that department. He applauded the Supreme Court's disgraceful affirmative action ruling, betrayed free trade principles and succumbed to political correctness on immigration policy, which is the one glaringly weak link in his conduct of the War on Terror. Those who otherwise support him scratch their heads at his apparent inconsistency here. You don't have to be a xenophobe to believe that lax immigration policies make us more vulnerable to terrorism. He has applied a different standard toward terrorism directed against Israel and advocates an independent Palestinian state, though land for peace has done nothing to curb the Palestinians' appetite for violence against Jews, and losing this strategic real estate would make Israel less secure and thus invite a full-scale invasion. But on domestic policy there's a major difference between George W. and his dad, who ran as Ronald Reagan's ideological successor. When Bush 41 reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge, he broke faith with Reagan orthodoxy, losing incalculable credibility with his base, which felt double-crossed. And while many have compared George W. to Ronald Reagan, he has never claimed to be an unabashed conservative – compassionate, maybe, but not unabashed. He's been somewhat of a paradox from the beginning. To this day I have difficulty categorizing his views. On the one hand, he seems to be instinctively conservative on certain issues and has been a strong moral leader and an extraordinarily decisive and effective commander in chief. On the other hand, he's shown a less-than-conservative strain in the many policy areas that I/ve listed, plus others. newsmax.com