:mattLandia:

Hey Mattlandia,

Cool website! It's bookmarked. I wanted to reply to your posting on the debates. I was frankly suprised to hear you say that you are on the fence. Was that just a ploy to get a response? Well anyway, I wanted to share my 2 cents.

I believe there is one major difference between the two parties in this presidential campaign. The difference I see is the War on Terror. With this difference in mind, you can see how the approaches to their campaigns greatly vary.

As I see it, the Bush ticket believes that we are at war with terrorism. (as the terrorists have been at war with us for much longer - first world trade center bombing, USS Cole Bomb, the Embassy bombings in Kenya & Tanzania, etc...) With this focus, their first agenda is to keep the war on terror on the offensive (do you remember playing "Age of Empires" against each other? There is no way you can win a war if you do not go on the offensive! You proved this to me too many times) With the War on Terror on the offensive, it is still possible we will have a terrorist attack on our soil, but much less likely as we are fighting & killing them elsewhere and disrupting their ability to plan and recruit.

As I see it, The Kerry ticket does not truly believe that there is a war on terror or a problem with rogue contries with nuclear programs. Did you hear in the first debate, his comments on nuclear proliferation? He said he would cancel the current project to have a nuclear bunker busting bomb and all other nuclear projects. Doesn't he know that North Korea and Iran have their nuclear bomb facilities under ground? How does he propose we deny them the ability to make those bombs? (which can then be sold to the highest bidder - do terrorist have e-bay for weapons of mass destruction?) Maybe he believes that having an alliance with bribed countries like France & Germany who have almost no military presence will be able to ask nicely and North Korea and Iran will say O.K.? I don't think so! The Kerry ticket is living in their pre 9/11 world. Have you looked up his voting record? After the first world trade center bombing he voted to cut the spending for the CIA. Can you say denial. He voted against funding our troops in Iraq. Can you say unpatriotic! I believe that the Kerry ticket has good intent, but for a time of peace & prosperity. Take a look at the history of our country during WW1 & WW2. I believe our first priority was winning those wars and protecting our country. After those wars were won, then the focus turned back to the national agenda.

During these time of uncertainty we need a presidency that will do their best to protect us. Improving healthcare is noble, but a trillion dollars in taxes to pay for it? No thank you! I pay enough in taxes already. So much for a stronger middle class. What good will improved healthcare be if we are spending all of our tax dollars to keep us healthy instead of protecting us and the terrorist go back on the offensive against us on U.S. soil. All other points are void if we cannot have a free and safe country to enjoy our liberties. I believe the Bush ticket has the better chance of protecting us. I see our country being passed over to the U.N. if the Kerry Ticket wins. That is my take on this election. I believe the Kerry campaign has the wrong election, wrong place, & wrong time for what they propose for a stronger America. My support goes to the Bush Campaign.

Jordanopolis

Thanks for the response Jordan! My being on the fence isn't a ploy, it's an honest response to being forced to choose from two lack luster candidates.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's a question of whether you want Kerry or not. It's a question of whether one thinks that we can take another of four years of Bush. I voted for him in 2000, but I hesitate to give him my vote again. I don't feel that I'm being a good citizen voting for a man, just because he believes in the greater good of war and that God is somehow on our side. Yes, sometimes the best defense is offense, but in the case of Bush I question his judgement of where to put the offense.

Furthermore, I look for anecdotes of success in Bush's national track record on a macro level and I see few to get excited about. He's done more to further the image of the US as Imperialists than any other President I can remember. He's got us into a war whose only realistic objective we have already achieved (the capture of Saddam and his regime) and we are now left in an environment that leaves us with no clear exit strategy. Saddam's capture is a moral victory for sure, but in terms of national security, the value of our continued war in Iraq is tenous at best. Furthermore, if we do stay there, the need for a draft is becoming more and more evident, and I unequivocably don't support a draft for a war in Iraq. Global terrorism is the world's burden, not solely ours.

Our deficit is outrageous and growing, and it's hard to endorse an administration whose track record makes it hard to believe that it will be any different over the next four years. You can't have a deficit and not pay for it sometime. If we don't pay for it in this administration, we'll pay for it in the next.

Lastly, I just don't think Bush can win peace. I have no doubt that he's got the balls to pick a fight with anyone (including N. Korea)if think's they threaten his view of the world order, but I don't think he has the saavy or global leadership to win global peace.

Yo Matteo-
What about local politics? Where do you stand with the choices we have this year to improve our back yard? I am having a really difficult time learning about thee candidates and our options...
With the onslaught of urban sprawl, our disintegrating sewer system, and transportation issues, I know that this is equally as important to discuss as the big picture presidential race