John Hawkins: The answer to this question totally depends on ideology. If you want conservative judges who believe their job is to strictly interpret the Constitution, you want Bush making the appointments. On the other hand, if you want activist judges who're going to try to legislate from the bench and push liberal policies that Democrats can't get voters to support, you want Kerry picking judges. That's what it comes down too.
Jeff Seemann: I think we can both agree that this is a huge issue and the country knows what they should expect with each candidate.
Moderator: Fair enough.
John Hawkins: Agreed.
Moderator: Okay, next question.
Moderator: Senator Kerry said in the last debate that he would not raise taxes for those making less than $200,000 a year, but the President Bush has said his proposed policies will force him to do so. Why should Americans believe either candidates claim?
Jeff Seemann: Same people that told us the tax cuts was going to create millions of jobs. Same people that told us the Medicare program only cost 400 billion dollars when it really cost 540 billion dollars. So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying."
You can't believe a word this President says.
You can believe Senator Kerry because the money is there, IF you have the right priorities. Real Homeland Security vs. Increasing our threat by invading Iraq. It costs as much to sustain 4 days worth of war in Iraq as it does to protect our exposed ports.
Tax cuts for the rich vs. Health care for our children.
Giving corporate loopholes to take their corporations overseas and avoid paying taxes vs. Fully funding education programs at home.
Opening Firehouses in Baghdad vs. opening them in the United States.
John Hawkins: Actually, I think he said, "And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending. ... Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes." to the contrary. Nothing short of some sort of Balanced Budget Amendment can control spending long-term in my opinion.
Of course, the third option is adding that amount to the debt, but I doubt if he'd be able to get away with that given how high it is now.
You could see a situation like we had during the Clinton administration, where Republicans in Congress lockdown on spending and tax revenue soars as the economy grows, but I doubt it since triangulation has become the order of the day.
Article comments
1 - Jim Carruthers
Conservatives in the US support small government, capitalism, a fairly strict reading of the Constitution, and traditional American values.
The big problem is that is what they (and I include almost all of the particular species who prowl along the garbage dump which is USAian politics) say, but that is nothing what they do. They are bottom feeders, scavengers and look up to rats.
They are scavengers and reactonaries, only looking for carrion to feed on.
Which is why they only associate with their own pack mates.
2 - mark baker
the problem my friends is the level of political discourse in this country is basically 3rd grade. It's name calling. It's did not, did so, did not did so. It's ridiculous. Look at this nice debate. Both guys have great things to say, very important weighty things to think about, and really to find any of it you have to ignore the fact they are both, in their own way, acting like children. I hang my head and cry when I read things like this. Bravo to the both of you, you have brought us down one small notch further. Nice.
3 - Bob A. Booey
This was a better debate than the first one, which was so one-sided. Hawkins is clearly a more dedicated, aggressive debater than that other blogger right-winger was. Half of the statements in his closing statement are basically untrue, however, especially most of the statements about foreign policy. For most of the debate, he seemed fairly reasonable (note his comments about a balanced budget and the Supreme Court), but most of the closing statement's conclusions are irrational and eccentric.
This debate was sort of a reversal of the first debate, since Hawkins had much more to say and typed much more than Seeman did. I think Seeman won the debate (despite his recycling of Kerry stump slogans), but I don't think it was a massacre like the last one. I think it was a fairly close debate, but Seemann wins since he has more logical evidence for his positions -- I don't think Hawkins addresses many of these points. I can see where some people might think Hawkins won, though, since he seemed more "into" the debate and more passionate rhetorically.
I haven't had the chance to read the 3rd party debate yet because it's hella long and there was less direct debate on issues.
That is all.
4 - Bob A. Booey
Whomever picked the books listed on this page gets big credit. Good stuff.
P.S. -- I'd kick any of your right-wing asses in one of these, even being above it all and everything.
5 - Elizabeth
I thought the debate was an interesting one. Major props for John Hawkins on staying his ground against the Lib. Good job, John!
6 - Mark Saleski
It's did not, did so, did not did so
no it's:
"yuh huh!"
"nuh uh!"
"YUH HUH!"
"NUH UH!!"
...and it is rediculous.
7 - Claire
John Hawkins is right. There will be no draft, and his reason therefor is correct. Political poison is like the cross and wooden stake. Representatives want to be re-elected....their positions are generally flexible in the face of the strongest lobbies and the contributors therefrom.
I believe Jeff is mistaken. Even if Kerry wins the election (god forbid) there will be no discernible change in foreign policy. His promises or good intentions may be fine...but it is what the road to hell are paved with.
I spent time in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. I have seen firsthand what we "did" and "didn't do". If I was committed before to my country's course of action, I am a rabid squirrel about it after that experience.
Jeff is obviously not moving off his party's platform which is understandable. Since I write for both sides I believe I have a clearer view.
My previous writings on this site make clear my position on the issues that are raised here.
I can see by reading this entire debate, that I am going to be holding John's coat while he speaks the truth. I could not, in all good conscience do anything else.
I am from TEXAS. That isn't what causes me to support the current administration. People underestimate our President. They haven't talked to him directly. They haven't seen the committment in his eyes. They hear that he speaks to God and isn't the most eloquent speaker in the world and they run. They are sadly mistaken, for they do not realize what they have.
A good debate, well thought out, moderated beautifully, and both sides expressed their views with conviction.
I don't think there can be any question about my positions. I would support John and his positions because he is right. It's funny, a bunch of non-pollitical, middle-class, middle aged people who live in my neighborhood all of a sudden found their Bush Cheney signs from 2000.
Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing. The silent majority is INDEED silent, until it comes to the nut cutting.
Claire
8 - Eric Olsen
you are a tremendous and surprising addition to the site, Claire. I agree that Bush is grossly misunderestimated, and although I agree with Kerry on more issues numerically, on the most important issues - ie security - I agree more with Bush.
And once again please allow me to say what a great job John, jeff and Dawn (who came up with the questions besides moderating) did. I am really surprised more political sites didn't pick up on this, shocked actually. But you never know with the Internet. We got 500K visitors to see Janet Jackson's tit - funny world.
9 - Hal Pawluk
My bullshit detector found a fragrant chunk here:
Much of the rest was much better.
10 - JR
Claire: Even if Kerry wins the election (god forbid) there will be no discernible change in foreign policy. His promises or good intentions may be fine...but it is what the road to hell are paved with.
Later: People underestimate our President. They haven't talked to him directly. They haven't seen the committment in his eyes.
Commitment to what? His good intentions?
Hmmm, I wonder if a look into Bush's eyes is as reassuring as a look into the eyes of that other great defender of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Putin.
11 - bob2112
So this is where you guys have been hanging out. I'm ready to kill this post too. Get ready for an outlandish position nobody is prepared for. Something that stumps the blogger crowd into pause. Then someone decides to perform CPR on a perfectly well planned forum. Ignoring the lunatic (No one either understood or wanted to encourage) some one braves the dead air by posting some, unrelated to 'nut case' crap, to get the 'conversation' back on the track that was "going somewhere."
I'll find & offend you all until the new & improved Patriot Act outlaws the internets!
12 - Claire Robinson
JR. Bob21, nothing shocks me into silence. I can't convince you of what I know. That W's intentions for this country are sound, are righteous, and are worthy. But what makes this country great is the debate and the disagreement between its citizens. I can tell you all day long that W is committed to the constitution, is commited to defending our country from any intruders, and takes his constitutional oath more seriously than he does his committment to his God, but that wouldn't convince you.
I know, for a fact, that he wants the same things I want. To sleep in peace without fear of sneak attacks on the people he is charged to protect; to see that the majority of the people in this country have jobs; to see that we continue on our path of research and development without a chasity belt, and to insure that what is currently available to the disadvantaged is gotten to them (which I admit is not enough). He wants the country we are supposed to be, and not the country we presently have. That is not a bad thing. I applaud him....long and loud.
Claire
13 - Hal Pawluk
Claire, you can't possibly "know" that.
14 - Claire Robinson
Oh, but I can know that, Hal. I sat with him as governor, I sat with him as a presidential candidate, and I sat with both him and Laura during the campaign. I DO know it. It is the basis of my support. I know what the man is made of. It is a finer cloth than we have had in many years.
Claire
15 - Hal Pawluk
Beauty, Claire :-)
I'll have to give you his intentions, but clearly his execution shows a cognitive disconnect.
16 - JR
So if Bush has better intentions than Kerry, does that mean he's paving a quicker road to hell?
17 - Claire
No, hal, JR...it means that he has good people around him and makes considered decisions, unmoved by polls, and spurred on by what is right...but hey...maybe thats not what the American people want. Maybe they want a wuss who can't make a decision, who has repeatedly demonstrated his agility in movement over the issues, and thinks POTUS would be good on his resume...
Who knows?
I am being lighthearted in this to keep from being ballistic....I am convincted that we have already the right man for the job. But hey, London is nice....I will like living there if things don't go as I plan...:)
Claire
18 - Hal Pawluk
"Spurred on by what is right"?
Sounds like any other zealot.
And a suspiciously large number of "the people around him" seem to be rich neoconservatives and former industry lobbyists now over-seeing the swame industries.
Good intentions aren't enough.
19 - JR
Actually it's "spurred on by what is Right." There's a difference.