Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
During the Friday night presidential debate George W. Bush reintroduced the label of "tax-and-spend liberals," directed at John Kerry. As a 65-year-old student of the political scene, including 42 years teaching American government to high school and college students, I find this label terribly overused and lacking in substance. All governments tax people to raise money for public services, so what distinguishes a liberal from a conservative within that context?
The conservatives have their own cross to bear regarding the government's funding of public policy. Ronald Reagan began the policy of "borrow and spend" to feed the military-industrial complex and bring about the end of the Cold War. Yes, we simply outspent the Soviet Union and forced that government into a state of bankruptcy. The cost to Americans was a budgetary deficit of huge proportions. Now, once again we have saddled our children with a $422-billion deficit to fight a suspect war in Iraq. How about those borrow-and-send conservatives!
The bottom line is that regardless of which of these labels obtains and spends the money, the reality is that it is our tax-derived dollars that pay the bill. We (or our children) have to bail out either the liberal or the conservative president in office at the time. Politicians of both parties are in charge of the proverbial henhouse.
Re: Round two, editorial, Oct 9.
Thank you for printing what my friends and I are talking about concerning last Friday night's debate. I have come to the sad conclusion that we will never get straight answers out of either candidate, just more party lines and evasions. They are both beginning to sound like the senator that Charles Durning played in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas when he sang, "Oh, I love to dance a little side step."
To George Bush and Times reporter Wes Allison (Both candidates let chances slip away, Oct. 9), I would like to ask a question. Which part of John Kerry's answer to the question regarding abortion monies did you not understand?
Respecting the questioner's beliefs? Mindbending, for sure. Kerry is a member of the Catholic faith and we all know where Catholics stand on abortion. Yes, I could see where that would leave you baffled. He mentioned international family aid because that is part of the overall issue. Maybe that's where he lost you.
He concluded by saying he would not impose his own beliefs on others. Now that is a novel idea. No wonder George was dazed and confused.
I watched the second presidential debate to hear how the candidates would help people like me. I wanted to know what John Kerry would do about the war in Iraq, and how he would help create good jobs and help all Americans afford health care. I was very disappointed. Kerry outlined no plan to bring peace to Iraq, make America secure, or improve our economy.
I also wanted to hear President Bush explain his plans for Iraq, the economy, and health care, which his record already has shown to be the right path for our country's future.
This debate made it clear: John Kerry has no plan to help real Americans. George Bush is fixing our problems and keeping our citizens safe.
I will now vote for Bush!
As I understand Sen. John Kerry's 20 years of service in the U.S. Senate, he did not introduce a single major bill. Now, in listening to Friday night's debate, Sen. Kerry informs us that he has a multitude of plans: a plan to end the war, a plan to defeat the terrorists, a plan for health care (like what they have in the Senate), a plan to lower taxes for those making less than $200,000, a plan to increase education, a plan that will produce more jobs, a plan to reduce the national budget, etc.
Sen. Kerry, I am listening and asking myself, if you have the ability to put together such impressive plans as you say you have, why did you not introduce such plans/bills during your past 20 years as a senator? It would be much easier to judge you now for what you did these past 20 years than based on what you propose now.
Re: Bush: WMD not the issue, Oct. 8.
Your front-page article shook me up. American blood of more than 1,000 of our troops was spilled for this "non-issue"! Bush is trying to change the rules after he started the game. No wonder America has lost its status and respect in the world.
For the past 31/2 years, we've been hearing about going to war for weapons of mass destruction. Now that it's been proven that there aren't any, and haven't been for nearly 15 years, Bush says it doesn't matter - and he has the nerve to call Kerry a flip-flopper.
Staying on the path isn't as important as recognizing when a path is wrong, and correcting it.
Like many I have grown weary of hearing Sen. John Kerry expound his latest feelings on Iraq: "The wrong war, at the wrong time for the wrong reasons . . ."
If Kerry truly believes this oft-repeated statement, and if he further believes there was no reason to topple Saddam Hussein's "elected government" (100 percent of all eligible Iraq voters chose him in their last election) then let Kerry step forward and make the boldest political suggestion in American history. Let him say with earnest conviction, "We were wrong, we made a huge mistake based on flawed intelligence - and if elected president I will return Mr. Hussein to his rightful place as leader of the Iraqi people."
If John Kerry is right, then we should be a big enough nation to step forward, admit our error and take what ever steps necessary to correct it.
We recently attended the "Vote For Change" concert, sponsored by ACT (America Coming Together). I just thought I'd pass on a little advice James Taylor gives to friends asking about the election: "Just watch the debates, and pick the smart one!"
Sounds like pretty good advice to me.