Bush v. Kerry (Cliff Notes version)
The title explains it all, I think, so let's get started...
Bush: liberation of Afghanistan, liberation of Iraq, Libya off the table as a threat because Qaddafi didn't want to "mess with Texas", successful Afghan elections (no voters killed while polling, clear winner in the end), and for all its problems, 14 or 15 of 18 Iraq provinces ready for election, no refugee crisis, no "rising of Arab street", and Iraq is off the table for now as a threat, a threat that would have grown had we left Hussein to acquire nuclear material for him to either use or lose to terrorists upon civil war following abdication of leadership/attempted transfer of power to sons, which in turn would have necessitated U.S. military action to clean up mess, only this time in much more averse conditions...and oh yes, no terrorist attacks on U.S. since 9/11.
Kerry: Wants more multilateral conduct and U.N. involvement in U.S. military affairs, although Bush coalition had 30 plus members, praises elder Bush as model coalition-builder, yet voted against that war even though U.N. was involved and coalition only had 30-plus members, disses current coalition members by referring to current Iraqi actions as "unilateral" ("uni" means "one", not "thirty-odd"), proposes "global test" that gives the "global community" a de facto veto of U.S. military policy since they are beholden to pacifist organizations like the U.N. that have such trouble distinguishing between democracies and dictatorships that they appoint Syria to the Human Rights Commission, wants to give nuclear fuel to Iran because they might use it for "peaceful purposes", even though theocratic dictatorships are not exactly known for their warm, fuzzy sides, admits in New York Times that he wants to get terrorism back to the point where it's a nuisance, forgetting that it only seemed a nuisance because 9/11 hadn't happened and not realizing that to ever again regard it as a nuisance would serve only to take our eye of the ball long enough for another 9/11 to happen.
Domestic issues: Candidates cancel each other out, Bush isn't serious about cutting government spending, Kerry doesn't talk about cutting spending, only increasing spending through health care plan. Kerry has advantage on stem cell position, but Edwards squanders it with ridiculous messiah posturing (people are going to get out of their wheelchairs and walk when Kerry is President?), Bush was the first to federally fund stem cell research, and there's nothing preventing private companies/individuals from funding/performing research, but are stem cells life? Bush has correct position on Canadian import drugs, but for wrong reason (Canadian drugs are cheap because the Canadian government artificially controls price, most Canadian drugs come from U.S., therefore you can't import Canadian drugs without ruining the U.S. market for U.S. drug companies...but banning Canadian drugs because they might be unsafe, no, seems unlikely). Both are right on abortion, Kerry seems a bit tortured on that point.
The parties themselves: Republican: the party of Guiliani, McCain, Reagan, Bush Sr., Platts, Spectre, all of whom I greatly respect. Democrat: the party of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Carter blase/passe/passive/pacifist and appeaser, respectively.
Advantage: Bush.
-Dave O'Connell
