Beef endorses Bush (Film at 11)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

In case anyone hasn't already figured out that I've jumped off of the fence, my blue avatar probably gives it away: I'm voting Bush, and I'm endorsing Bush as the best choice on Nov. 2.  Here's why:

1. Bush is the best choice for fighting the global war on terror.
2. Bush is the best choice for the security of Israel.
3. Bush is (albeit marginally) the best choice for the economy.
4. Bush is the best choice for respecting the sanctity of human life.

I do not agree with the decision to go to war in Iraq.  I think it was a bad policy move, and not the best place to fight the war on global terror (dare I say: "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time").  However, Bush has demonstrated clearly that he believes that we are in a global war on terror (we are), and that he intends to take proactive measures to fight it.  Iraq has not been all bad.  There have been innumerable positive consequences: The people of Iraq are now free, the region has the potential for the emergence of a second democratic power, and Islamic terrorists have been drawn into Iraq from all over the world, where they can be killed by our military in one place, rather than us hunting them where they live.

The fundamental point is that fighting this war is going to require our overthrowing despotic governments that threaten the stability of the region and the security of the world, and establishing democracies in which terror cannot thrive.  Iraq would have had to be dealt with sooner or later.  Bush has drawn up a plan, and he has stuck with it.  Kerry, on the other hand, has no long-term plan to fight this war, other than a series of shifting positions that change with every minor change in fortunes overseas.  He has shown zero capacity for grasping the nature of the problem, and for forming a clear solution.  He has shown zero capacity for sticking with a plan, even if he did have one.

The Bush administration has clearly demonstrated not only that they stand behind the State of Israel, but that they are willing seek out solutions for lasting peace.  What can we expect from a Kerry administration?  Are we going to see further legitimization of Arafat and his band of racist, terrorist thugs?  I'm not quite sure, but the Democrats of late do not have a terrific track record of supporting Israel.  It is vitally important that we support and prop up the only free democracy in the region.

I think that many of the Bush tax cuts went too far, and our federal deficit is dangerously large.  And it is clear to me that Bush has not done nearly enough to encourage our economy to recover from the burst of the Clinton Bubble, and the economic devastation of 9/11.  However, I think Bush is doing more good than harm, and that in principle, he is doing the right thing.  Things could be a lot worse than they are.  If the Democrats come to power, we will see a return to high-taxing, high-spending government with increased central control on the economy.  We've been down that road before, and I for one do not want to see a repeat of the 1970s.

Finally, I believe in the sanctity of human life, and the full personhood of the unborn.  Bush will respect life.  Kerry will not.  All the more troubling considering that Kerry is a Roman Catholic and is betraying the moral teachings of his own church (as a side issue, do we really want our nation led by someone who ignores his own moral superiors?).  I do not want to see a continuance of late-term abortion as a means of birth control, and I do not want to see the creation of human life to be used as laboratory rats.  I know that many do not share this view, but I must follow my conscience, and Bush's policies concerning life are much more in tune with it.

So I will be voting Bush on Nov. 2, and I encourage others to do the same.

[John Dibble]

Well, it's good that you've made a decision. Vote for who you think will do the best job.

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Anywho, vote your organs.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well, it's good that you've made a decision. Vote for who you think will do the best job.

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Anywho, vote your organs.

I wish I had been able to see Badnarik in Oshkosh on Tuesday.  I think he's a very bright man, and I would have liked to have met him.  I think I could have shaken his hand, said that I enjoyed what he had to say, and agreed with a lot of it, but that I was going to vote Bush.  And I think that he, alone among the candidates, would have respected and understood my decision to vote for someone else.  Libertarians are all about people making decisions for themselves, which is probably why they'll never become a major force in politics ;-).

I have a conservative friend who transplanted to Alabama - he's voting Badnarik, and I may have done the same if I weren't living in such a crucial state.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Ah, but if you had to choose between Bush or Kerry, who do you think would do better for our economy?  Ideally, I'd like a Third-way deficit-hawk, but since we can't have that, Bush is (sadly) the best we can do right now.

[John Dibble]

Well, it's good that you've made a decision. Vote for who you think will do the best job.

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Anywho, vote your organs.

I wish I had been able to see Badnarik in Oshkosh on Tuesday.  I think he's a very bright man, and I would have liked to have met him.  I think I could have shaken his hand, said that I enjoyed what he had to say, and agreed with a lot of it, but that I was going to vote Bush.  And I think that he, alone among the candidates, would have respected and understood my decision to vote for someone else.  Libertarians are all about people making decisions for themselves, which is probably why they'll never become a major force in politics ;-).

I have a conservative friend who transplanted to Alabama - he's voting Badnarik, and I may have done the same if I weren't living in such a crucial state.

Yeah, your vote belongs to you - it's your choice who it goes to. I do think we'll become a major political force someday, we just need time, hard work, and luck on our side. Heh, right now telling people to vote their heart is actually more likely to make them vote for us. But, I'm still hoping that the major party candidates will spontaneously combust before election day, so people would have to vote third party.

Of course, I'd be more willing to vote Badnarik if I were in a swing state - spoiling either candidate would get our party some much needed attention. Four years of Kerry would be but a small sacrifice if it meant getting Libertarians into office in 2008 and turning government around.

Just curious though, what state assembly district do you live in?

[John Dibble]

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Ah, but if you had to choose between Bush or Kerry, who do you think would do better for our economy?  Ideally, I'd like a Third-way deficit-hawk, but since we can't have that, Bush is (sadly) the best we can do right now.

Probably Bush, provided he spends less this next term, though I think they both suck on the issue. Though Kerry would be gridlocked from growing government and taxes by the Republican Congress, which would be good too, so it's hard to say.

However, the more votes and attention the Libertarians get now the more likely change will come in the future. Change can not and will not come unless people are willing to work for it - voting the status quo won't make anything change. Therefore I vote and support Libertarians in the hope that things will change. Voting the lesser of two evils still results in evil, and the longer people do that the more damage will be done, so it's best to vote for change as soon as possible.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

But, I'm still hoping that the major party candidates will spontaneously combust before election day, so people would have to vote third party.

If Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards were all to blow up, there are a number of scenarios that would happen, probably none of which would result in President Badnarik.

Of course, there's nothing in the US Constitution that says that the name on a ballot has to be someone elegible for President, or even a living person.  So it would come down to state law.  I don't even know Wisconsin's laws concerning this, let alone the laws of other states, but my guess is that, 5 days before the election, most states would not change the ballot, and votes for either dead candidate would still be votes for that candidate's slate of electors.

Both parties would hold immediate emergency leadership conventions to endorse a new candidate, instructing all potential electors to vote for that candidate.  The Republicans would probably endorse McCain/Guilliani, and the Democrats Gephardt/Bob Graham.  In states that require the deceased candidates' names be removed from the ballot, the two parties could probably press to have the new "nominees" added to the ballot, with the same electors as were pledges to the deceased nominees.

Then there would be a massive education campaign on both sides to introduce the new nominees, and inform voters that a vote for Bush is actually a vote for McCain, or that a vote for Kerry is really a vote for Gephardt, and so on.

In any event, we'd still have one of the two major parties winning all 50 states plus DC.  Even if Bandarik or Nader could pick up one or two states, at the very least, the election would be thrown into Congress.

This is actually one of the great things about the Electoral College - that we can deal with this sort of catastrophe.

Of course, I'd be more willing to vote Badnarik if I were in a swing state - spoiling either candidate would get our party some much needed attention. Four years of Kerry would be but a small sacrifice if it meant getting Libertarians into office in 2008 and turning government around.

If the LP were a bit more moderate, they would also be a lot more attractive to me (and millions of others).  After the implosion of Clinton/Gore, we once again need a Third Way, and the LP could fill this need if they could get past the "blow up the IRS, ban the FDA, etc..." rhetoric.

Just curious though, what state assembly district do you live in?

Assembly 55 (Kaufert)
Senate 19 (Ellis)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen19/sdist19.pdf

Both Republicans.   The GOP in our state goverment is a total joke,  so I'll be voting Democrats for both seats.  Are there LP candidates for either?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Beef: is your new sig intended to make you look like a complete jerk?

No offense intended

[John Dibble]

Beef:

1. Fine then, I hope every non-libertarian style Democrat and Republican in power combusts as well.

2. Well, the Party might just be a little more moderate if we had more moderate members. *wink wink* I agree that the Party leadership could stand to at least cool it's jets a bit, but I think we are working towards that end as far as how we get our points across.

3. That's a shame, though the GOP being a joke is probably why the LP is getting attention in that state. I was hoping you lived in District 50, because Tom Kuester is running a pretty viable campaign - the GOP incumbent is treating him more seriously than she is the Democrat(even running slanderous smear ads on the radio against him), and he is able to self-fund his campaign(he owns three restaraunts in the area) so he has raised more money than her - if you know anyone in the district tell them to consider voting for him. There's no LP candidate in your district, unfortunately.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef: is your new sig intended to make you look like a complete jerk?

No offense intended

None taken.

You don't think Bin Laden prefers John Kerry?

[ilikeverin]

Beef: is your new sig intended to make you look like a complete jerk?

No offense intended

None taken.

You don't think Bin Laden prefers John Kerry?

No, I think he prefers Bush so he can get more terrorists to his cause *I'm undecided of whether to use , , >P, , or here*

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Beef: is your new sig intended to make you look like a complete jerk?

No offense intended

None taken.

You don't think Bin Laden prefers John Kerry?

I would be very, very, very suprised if he cares either way

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef: is your new sig intended to make you look like a complete jerk?

No offense intended

None taken.

You don't think Bin Laden prefers John Kerry?

I would be very, very, very suprised if he cares either way

I think the forces of international terror will be overjoyed if Kerry wins.  Now, if Kerry does his job, and I pray that he does, those terrorists will become very quickly disillusioned.  But I have no doubt that right now they are rooting for the "crazy cowboy" to lose.

Anyway, I'm removing it from my sig.  Just a bit too blindly partisan for my taste.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

3. That's a shame, though the GOP being a joke is probably why the LP is getting attention in that state.

I would not mind at all there being more Libertarians in charge of things in Madison, as there are several statewide issues near and dear to me for which I know the Libertarians would come down on my side.

In any event, the Republicans in Madison are worthless.  Our state is a tax hell, the economy's bleeding jobs, and all the Republicans care about are stupid superficial social issues that we don't have time for.  It's time to chuck 'em out.

[12th Doctor]

WooHoo!!

Wisconsin is Bush country!

BEEF! BEEF! BEEF! BEEF!

[John Dibble]

3. That's a shame, though the GOP being a joke is probably why the LP is getting attention in that state.

I would not mind at all there being more Libertarians in charge of things in Madison, as there are several statewide issues near and dear to me for which I know the Libertarians would come down on my side.

In any event, the Republicans in Madison are worthless.  Our state is a tax hell, the economy's bleeding jobs, and all the Republicans care about are stupid superficial social issues that we don't have time for.  It's time to chuck 'em out.

Maybe you should run under the LP for something next election cycle.

[angus]

Of course, I'd be more willing to vote Badnarik if I were in a swing state - spoiling either candidate would get our party some much needed attention. Four years of Kerry would be but a small sacrifice if it meant getting Libertarians into office in 2008 and turning government around.

Nice.  Don't take sh**t offa people who don't take the third party guys seriously.  I voted for third party candidates in the past and I know how irritating that is.  The folks whining about how Perot cost Bush the election and the folks whining about how Nader cost Gore seem to be missing the point that their candidates really sucked, and that's why their candidates lost to better candidates.

And Beef, you're right about what big spenders the GOP have become, and about how they're too into the wedge issues just now.  All the more reason to change 'em from within, instead of whine about it from without.  I admire that you came to this decision seriously.  I'd like to echo John Dibble's sentiments:  I'm glad you made a decision to vote for who you think is best, given the miserable alternatives, whether or not it's the same guy I'm voting for.  Though I'm certainly glad it's my guy 

Score one for the Gipper!  (or, um, the gipper's vice president's junior.  whatever.  you know what I mean.)

[badnarikin04]

Well, it's good that you've made a decision. Vote for who you think will do the best job.

I have to disagree with you on who's best on the economic issue at least - I think Badnarik would do better for the economy, decreasing taxes and unnecessary government services would pump more money into our pockets while decreasing or eliminating that deficit.

Anywho, vote your organs.

I wish I had been able to see Badnarik in Oshkosh on Tuesday.  I think he's a very bright man, and I would have liked to have met him.  I think I could have shaken his hand, said that I enjoyed what he had to say, and agreed with a lot of it, but that I was going to vote Bush.  And I think that he, alone among the candidates, would have respected and understood my decision to vote for someone else.  Libertarians are all about people making decisions for themselves, which is probably why they'll never become a major force in politics ;-).

I have a conservative friend who transplanted to Alabama - he's voting Badnarik, and I may have done the same if I weren't living in such a crucial state.

Ach, another one suffers to "wasted vote syndrome"!

Oy-vey.