Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Socko Wiethe Wrote:I'm all for tax reform. The system is a mess. I'm all for a more effective and efficient government. But I'm not willing to be blindly swallowed up by ideology that as a practical matter will make the overall quality of life for people (in particular, the middle and lower classes) in this country worse, not better. To be blunt, that's the same mistake I think many people make in backing Bush as president -- the like his ideological talk so much, they are willing to excuse the long litany of mistakes he's made as a practical matter of governing.

1. Explain how the middle and lower classes suffer because of a flat tax.

2. Explain how ideology is NOT playing a role in your decision to not vote for Bush. To expound it, explain what ideological viewpoints you and Bush share, if any, and in turn why those don't matter given the mistakes, in your opinion, he's made.

1. I'm not claiming to be a tax expert. I've seen where others have called the flat tax and the VAT regressive, but I haven't read enough to feel confident in sharing those claims. Generally, though, I think everyone ought to pay their fare share. To truly get to that point, we probably ought to trash the current system that has been bastardized by decades of adjustments and political abuse, and start from scratch. Politically, though, that would be impossible to do.

2. Bush the candidate ran as a moderate, with that same "compassionate conservative" crap he's trying to roll back out there and get people to buy into again now. He promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He promised fiscal responsibility. He promised a tax cut that would be fair and most positively impact lower-income Americans. He promised education reform (I guess we missed the fine print where he never promised he would find a way to pay for it). He ran claiming to be environmentally responsible. He said he would make government more accountable (should have noticed that asterisk that added, "Executive branch exempted.") He said he would restore honor and dignity to the White House. I would support any of these statements from a candidate. In my opinion, however, he's fallen far short on each count.

No one in 2000 saw 9/11 coming or could have guessed how central that would turn out to be in his term. I thought he was strong and setting the right tone (even if the "evil-doers" language was a little goofy) for a number of weeks after that event. But when the obvious things that had to be done were exhausted from the list and he had to set policy on how we would proceed, he began making poor choices. When it became clear that these were bad choices, he would never admit to the obvious.

The biggest problem, in a word, is trust. I don't trust this president. In fact, I fear him. He's got no sense for managing the budget. With another four years to put in place his fiscal decisions, I shudder to think about the legacy that will be left for my kids. As someone once proposed, the easiest way to defeat America wouldn't be militarily, it would merely be to wreck the financial system. If a major financial crisis erupts, do you think Bush is going to be listening to those who are trying to protect average Americans, or his corporate boosters who are trying to keep from getting their fortunes blown out of the water?

On foreign policy, are we supposed to trust a man who made such incredibly shallow decisions on launching a war of choice against Iraq to now manage true potential nuclear crises with North Korea or Iran? What if Pakistan's leadership falls, or if Iraq starts to deteroriate?

These are not ideological differences. I question, because of the man's white-knuckle death grip on his ideology above all else, his competence to govern. Amazingly, prominent conservatives like Bill Kristol are now reaching the same conclusions. Is it any wonder why Bush and Karl Rove are so eager to inject gay marriage, abortion and a host of other sideshow issues into the campaign in hopes of deflecting attention from the real question, the Bush record?