Bush said what he believed and didn't attempt to pander to the audience. I disagree with much of what he said, especially on the drug war, but I respect his honesty. I'm voting for Browne, but I'm hoping Bush wins.
Yet the Shrub clearly claimed credit for laws he did not sign and even tried to veto
Bush agreed in principle on the Texas patient's bill of rights, but there were a few details of the bill he disagreed with. For a much better example of what you're talking about, see Clinton and Gore's attempts to take credit for welfare reform.
(aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie)
The rules of the debate were very clear that candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions. I'm sure Bush would have loved to ask Gore why he keeps making such inane statements about "tax cuts for the rich" among other things, but he chose to abide by the rules. Gore did not, which should come as no surprise since throughout the Clinton administration he has believed himself to be above the law (e.g. "no controlling legal authority").
There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub
I agree. I would love to see a detailed analysis of Bush and Gore's Social Security plans, which would show that Bush is attempting to move it to a self-sustaining asset-backed system, while Gore wants to continue to throw money at the pyramid scheme to keep it going for a few more years, and who cares how much in taxes our grandkids will have to pay.
Result of rape: victim whose rights were violated.
Result of murder: dead victim whose rights were violated.
Result of smoking a joint: spaced-out non-victim with nobody's rights violated.
I'll be honest, I think a lot of it is selfishness; the "I earned it, it's all mine" attitude.
The only selfishness I see comes from the socialists who believe they are entitled to forcibly take the products of other people's labor because they "need" it more. Capitalists want to make money by providing products and services that other people want. Socialists want to take money that others have made under threat of violence. This is where the previously mentioned 100 million dead victims of socialist governments come in.
I can't believe anyone can say this with a straight face, after the Communications Decency Act, Clipper Chip, encryption export controls, and Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Democrats are no better at protecting freedom on the Internet or anywhere else, and are worse in many ways.
Regarding an issue where there is a real different, vote for Bush or Browne if you'd like a chance of recovering any of your Social Security payments.
Well, maybe it's because 100% of the major candidates don't have jack for policy that is of interest to anyone under 40
How about Social Security reform? Right now, 15% of your salary is being taken to support this pyramid scheme, and if you're really lucky (i.e. you live long enough and payroll taxes aren't raised again) you might come out of it with a 1-2% return, vastly worse than even letting the money sit in a savings account. George W Bush realizes this is a problem and has proposed a first step toward a solution by letting you invest part of your SS taxes in personal retirement accounts. That way you own actual assets instead of a vague promise from the government that the Supreme Court has already ruled they are under no obligation to keep. Predictably, Al Gore is screaming that Bush's plan will result in seniors being thrown out of their homes and forced to eat dog food, which is of course a complete lie as it would have no effect on current benefits.
This is a very serious issue for people our age, as it could literally mean a difference of hundereds of thousands of dollars when we retire. Compound interest is a wonderful thing...
An excellent analysis of the present situation. (btw, if you believe in restoring the government to its constitutional bounds then you already agree with most of the Libertarian platform). As I recall, a few years back a representative proposed a rule requiring Congress to cite the Consitutional authority for every bill they passed. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court may actually be moving towards enforcing Constitutional limits, as shown by the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act. Government lawyers made the ridiculous argument that violence against women should be a federal crime because it indirectly affects interstate commerce. Of course using that reasoning, everything indirectly affects everything else, so the federal government can regulate absolutely anything...hmm, very convenient. Fortunately the SC shot them down, but only by a 5-4 margin. Which means if Gore gets to appoint any justices then any hope of constitutionally limited government is gone.
Bear in mind that Clinton and Gore happily signed the DMCA and CDA, and the mostly Republican Supreme Court wasted no time in striking down the latter.
Regarding abortion, the "strict constructionist" position is simply that the Constitution gives no power to the federal government to either legalize or prohibit abortion; thus it should be a state matter. Abortion could never be outlawed at the federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President and Supreme Court have no authority. I personally believe abortion should be legal, but I recognize that Roe v. Wade was a blatant overreach of judicial power.
I think this could be a critical election on a number of fronts, and having "survived" the previous Bush presidency, when the economy went to hell while he's on TV wondering over the miracle of supermarket scanners, and the whole Industrial park I was working in became a ghost town, all I can say is "No More Bush!"
Slightly off topic, but the recession in 90-91 was very mild compared to, say, the Carter years. It actually ended well before the 92 elections, allowing Clinton to take credit for the recovery that had already begun.
Besides, despite what many people believe the President does not run the economy. If anybody does, it would be Alan Greenspan, but really the economy runs itself.
Please moderate this up. The media seem to have decided that liberals are "correct" on all the issues, and their only flaws are occasional character lapses. This is obviously not the case for a large number of people. For me, Gore's deceptions and demagoguery on Social Security and tax cuts are much more of a reason to vote against him than his exaggerations about creating the Internet.
But, the fact remains, my vote does not matter in this election? Why? Because I live in Texas, and Texas is already sending its electoral college votes to Dubya
Mathematically speaking, your vote is always irrelevant unless the election is decided by exactly one vote. It won't even let you "make your voice heard" because there will be no difference in the reports if Bush or Gore gets 50,123,456 or 50,123,457 votes. And voting for a third party doesn't help either; I'll vote for Harry Browne so maybe he'll get 1,050,442 votes instead of 1,050,441. Big deal.
It's a bit of a paradox, nobody's vote determines the election but if based on that everybody decided to stay home, the system wouldn't work. So why will I vote? The same reason I run seti@home and distributed.net clients, so that I can feel that at least in a small way I'm doing something constructive. Even though nobody would notice if I didn't, it makes me feel good.
Now, you say Browne's politics are 'excellent.' That's all well and good, but governments are needed to protect people from those who would abuse them.
Virtually every abuse of rights mentioned on/. (CDA, DMCA, Clipper chip, Carnivore, bogus patents, etc) is directly caused by government. Sure, sometimes corporations advocate some of them (like DMCA) but without government force to back them up they would be much less powerful. Browne's solution is to remove power from the government, so it would have no authority to pass the draconian laws that corporations might want (as a side effect, greatly reducing the incentives for corporations to lobby/bribe lawmakers). Nader's solution is to subordinate both business and individuals to the government, which assumes that neither he nor his successors would ever abuse that power. Nader actually seems like an honest guy, but I'm not willing to hand over that much power to anyone.
A weak government is an invitation for a large corporation to come in and abuse the people. (See Nike's Asian sweatshops.)
Is Nike forcing the people there to work at gunpoint? If not, then the workers are exercising their best available options. It may suck that their options are limited, but closing the "sweatshops" would make them worse off.
Governments are needed to make sure companies don't screw the workers by paying them less than the minimum wage (though even that wage is a piece of shit).
Minimum wages increase unemployment. A minimum wage of $X says to the unskilled worker "if your productivity is less than $X per hour, you cannot get a job". It also raises the cost of goods by artifically increasing labor costs. It's an inefficient and often counterproductive form of welfare.
Finally, what good is your bitching if you don't vote? Your vote DOES make a difference.
I want to vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian), but I would also rather see Bush in the white house than Gore, even though I don't like either of them. What do I plan to do? Vote Libertarian anyways. I don't expect to see Harry Browne in the white house next year, nor do I expect to be happy with the next President.
Good for you, that's what I'm doing also. Remember, your vote is not going to decide the election. Bush or Gore is going to win regardless of whether you or I vote for Bush, Browne, or Cthulu. The truly wasted vote is when you vote for the lesser of two evils, because you have declared that you support something that you don't.
This is also why the line-item veto has been so strongly favored -- traditionally the Republicans have supported the presidential line-item veto, because it can be used to reign in pork-barrell spending in appropriations bills, but they have strangely stopped their support of it with a Democrat in office, which is a shame.
This is not true. Most Republicans continued to support the line-item veto after Clinton was elected. Clinton supported it for obvious reasons, but many Democrats opposed it. As I recall, it was actually passed but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional a few years ago.
I've actually heard a semi-rational argument in support of this. It assumes that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to create lots of virtual worlds and populate them with virtual lifeforms who would have no idea they were inside a simulation. Since there would be many virtual worlds and only one real one, the probability is that an arbitrary lifeform is more likely to be in a virtual world than the real one. Not that I believe it, but interesting nonetheless...
When you pay taxes, you don't "lose the window". The taxes go to pay for things that have naterial value that society benefits from (the degree and type of benefit is usually what people argue about).
But government programs are not efficient. If they were, then socialism would work. Instead, most people are better off under capitalism even with the disparate amount of wealth at the top.
Society is no poorer for having spent the money on space (though you can certainly argue the opportunity cost of not spending it elsewhere).
Exactly, that's the point. No money is actually "lost" in programs that pay farmers not to grow corn, but surely there is productivity that such programs destroy.
Assume your argument is true: taxes are eliminated, and your employer compensates by lowering your salary. That means the company's expenses go down, and their profits go up. What happens to these profits? They either get invested, creating more economic growth, or they go to the shareholders. In the second case, the shareholders will save or invest it themselves, and it means that you will get a better return on your own stocks.
I'd really like to vote for Browne, but it doesn't make sense if he has no chance.
Why not? This isn't a popularity contest, and you don't win a stuffed animal if you "choose" the winner. This election is not going to be decided by 1 or 1000 votes. Whether you or I vote for Browne or Bush has absolutely no effect on who will win. When you vote for Bush, you are explicitly saying, "yes, I do want more socialism, just not quite as much as Gore wants". When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
Then when this fired worker applies for his next job it's, (interviewer to himself) "What? You're married with two kids?" (interviewer to you) "I'm sorry but you're { not qualified | too expensive | not what we're looking for }". It is discrimination pure and simple.
I agree that basing hiring decisions solely on whether you will be willing and/or able to work >>40 hour weeks is stupid and shortsighted. However, in some cases I can see the logic. Say you have two 30 year old applicants for a job with equal skills. Candidate A is single and has no problem working 60 hour weeks, while B has a wife and 3 kids and wants to work only 40 hours. How can you expect the company to ignore the fact that A is going to give them more for their money?
Being willing to work longer hours is equivalent to being willing to work for less money; it's just supply and demand. Many people seem to think that having a family and children should come with zero tradeoffs, but it can't.
And yes, even if well paid, 70-100 hour work weeks == crap treatment and abuse of a salaried worker. Just like you can't justify exposing workers to workplace hazards by claiming, "they're paid well and accepted the job"
I work around 70 hours a week (with occasional/. breaks...). I am paid well, I knew what would be involved when I signed up, and my work environment is fantastic. I really don't need you to inform me that I am being "abused" and to prevent me from making voluntary and informed choices.
Are they seriously trying to tell me that the 30 minutes of sex and violence in a television show has no affect on the viewers, but the 30 second commercial for a soft drink has a big enough affect on these same people to be worth thousands of dollars?
Short answer: yes. Trying to convince someone to buy Coke instead of Pepsi does not involve changing his moral values, and is far more likely to occur than someone watching Die Hard and deciding that maybe murdering innocent people isn't so bad after all.
The man preaches about the importance of education, however, he wants to stop a $120 million investment to merge technology with education. This would put internet into many schools and give computers to many schools that would otherwise not be able to afford them. Anyone who is pro-technology and knows the issues can clearly see that your pocketbook is more protected by Gore than Bush. More technology, more jobs for techies.
First, several recent studies have suggested that computers in schools have little or no impact on educational performance. Second, the amount of tech jobs is not dependent on how much the government spends. I could just as plausibly claim that Bush's tax cuts will give taxpayers the ability to buy more technology products, therefore increasing demand for tech workers.
Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!!
So does Gore. You're not going to find any sort of rational drug policy in the major parties.
I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done.
I currently live in Texas, and much appreciate not having a state income tax. And amazingly, children and old people aren't starving in the streets.
Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly.
Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned.
Bush is far from ideal, but Gore and Lieberman are no better.
The reasonable view, in my opinion, is where both sides admit that both sides are basically trying to follow the law.
I won't admit that, because I don't believe the government is trying to follow the law, which in this case means the Constitution. There is plenty of evidence for this position; the Communications Decency Act, the Clipper chip, crypto export controls, Know Your Customer, the meth anti-proliferation bill, etc, etc.
What I do take issue with, is when they distract from the central questions by bashing integrity of the FBI and all other involved parties.
The FBI and many other government agencies deserve to have their integrity questioned based on past activities. Very few people here seem to have any difficuly accepting that entities like the RIAA and MPAA are determined to remove consumers' rights in order to increase their own power. Why can this not be true for government as well?
Carnivore is unconstitutional on its face. It is the equivalent of bugging every telephone in the country and promising only to listen to the "bad" people.
I don't know why you're singling Bush out as being opposed to free speech. Gore and Lieberman are the ones running around announcing their plans to censor all entertainment media (that is, when they're not attending fundraisers in Hollywood). Also remember that Clinton and Gore enthusiastically supported the Communications Decency Act (unanimously struck down by a mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court) and the Clipper chip. Censorship is not really a Democrat vs Republican issue; neither party has any objection to abridging freedom if they think it will help them win votes from soccer moms or bible-thumpers. One of many reasons I'm voting Libertarian.
Ted Nugent makes Bush's position on Columbine and the Internet look rational. Apparently, his book suggests that the Columbine kids should've rushed the gunmen
Why is that such an unreasonable course of action, as compared trying to hide and hoping that the gunman kills someone else instead of you? Here is a report (original source here) on a student who did exactly that, and was aided by his experience with guns:
In May 1998, 15-year-old Kip Kinkel walked into the crowded cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, and opened up on students with a.22-caliber semiautomatic rifle. He shot wildly at first, then started singling students out for death. At one point Kinkel walked up to a student who was lying on the floor, placed the rifle to her head, and attempted to fire three times, but nothing happened. Wrestler Jacob Ryker, shot through the lung in the first wave of bullets, charged the 15 feet separating him from Kinkel, tackled him, and disarmed him. Had Ryker not done so, the toll could have been much higher than the roughly two dozen injuries and two deaths the shooting caused.
In a Nightline broadcast shortly after the shooting, ABC's Ted Koppel credited Ryker with halting the shooting. But once the details of the shooting were out of the way, the program quickly turned into another debate on gun control. Koppel and his reporters never explained how it was that Ryker knew when to attack Kinkel; the hero could have been doing nothing more than making himself a better target in a suicidal charge. It turned out that Ryker and his family were hunters and target shooters. From the sounds the gun made, Ryker knew Kinkel was out of ammunition. Ryker's parents credited his familiarity with firearms with helping to stop the shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely false. See for example this poll, which shows Bush's policies are preferred to Gore's on most of the top issues.
Bush said what he believed and didn't attempt to pander to the audience. I disagree with much of what he said, especially on the drug war, but I respect his honesty. I'm voting for Browne, but I'm hoping Bush wins.
Bush agreed in principle on the Texas patient's bill of rights, but there were a few details of the bill he disagreed with. For a much better example of what you're talking about, see Clinton and Gore's attempts to take credit for welfare reform.
(aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie)
The rules of the debate were very clear that candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions. I'm sure Bush would have loved to ask Gore why he keeps making such inane statements about "tax cuts for the rich" among other things, but he chose to abide by the rules. Gore did not, which should come as no surprise since throughout the Clinton administration he has believed himself to be above the law (e.g. "no controlling legal authority").
There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub
I agree. I would love to see a detailed analysis of Bush and Gore's Social Security plans, which would show that Bush is attempting to move it to a self-sustaining asset-backed system, while Gore wants to continue to throw money at the pyramid scheme to keep it going for a few more years, and who cares how much in taxes our grandkids will have to pay.
Result of rape: victim whose rights were violated.
Result of murder: dead victim whose rights were violated.
Result of smoking a joint: spaced-out non-victim with nobody's rights violated.
See the difference?
The only selfishness I see comes from the socialists who believe they are entitled to forcibly take the products of other people's labor because they "need" it more. Capitalists want to make money by providing products and services that other people want. Socialists want to take money that others have made under threat of violence. This is where the previously mentioned 100 million dead victims of socialist governments come in.
I can't believe anyone can say this with a straight face, after the Communications Decency Act, Clipper Chip, encryption export controls, and Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Democrats are no better at protecting freedom on the Internet or anywhere else, and are worse in many ways.
Regarding an issue where there is a real different, vote for Bush or Browne if you'd like a chance of recovering any of your Social Security payments.
You are wrong. The link is from 1996, but Browne also qualified for matching funds this year.
How about Social Security reform? Right now, 15% of your salary is being taken to support this pyramid scheme, and if you're really lucky (i.e. you live long enough and payroll taxes aren't raised again) you might come out of it with a 1-2% return, vastly worse than even letting the money sit in a savings account. George W Bush realizes this is a problem and has proposed a first step toward a solution by letting you invest part of your SS taxes in personal retirement accounts. That way you own actual assets instead of a vague promise from the government that the Supreme Court has already ruled they are under no obligation to keep. Predictably, Al Gore is screaming that Bush's plan will result in seniors being thrown out of their homes and forced to eat dog food, which is of course a complete lie as it would have no effect on current benefits.
This is a very serious issue for people our age, as it could literally mean a difference of hundereds of thousands of dollars when we retire. Compound interest is a wonderful thing...
Fortunately, the Supreme Court may actually be moving towards enforcing Constitutional limits, as shown by the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act. Government lawyers made the ridiculous argument that violence against women should be a federal crime because it indirectly affects interstate commerce. Of course using that reasoning, everything indirectly affects everything else, so the federal government can regulate absolutely anything...hmm, very convenient. Fortunately the SC shot them down, but only by a 5-4 margin. Which means if Gore gets to appoint any justices then any hope of constitutionally limited government is gone.
Regarding abortion, the "strict constructionist" position is simply that the Constitution gives no power to the federal government to either legalize or prohibit abortion; thus it should be a state matter. Abortion could never be outlawed at the federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President and Supreme Court have no authority. I personally believe abortion should be legal, but I recognize that Roe v. Wade was a blatant overreach of judicial power.
Slightly off topic, but the recession in 90-91 was very mild compared to, say, the Carter years. It actually ended well before the 92 elections, allowing Clinton to take credit for the recovery that had already begun.
Besides, despite what many people believe the President does not run the economy. If anybody does, it would be Alan Greenspan, but really the economy runs itself.
Please moderate this up. The media seem to have decided that liberals are "correct" on all the issues, and their only flaws are occasional character lapses. This is obviously not the case for a large number of people. For me, Gore's deceptions and demagoguery on Social Security and tax cuts are much more of a reason to vote against him than his exaggerations about creating the Internet.
Mathematically speaking, your vote is always irrelevant unless the election is decided by exactly one vote. It won't even let you "make your voice heard" because there will be no difference in the reports if Bush or Gore gets 50,123,456 or 50,123,457 votes. And voting for a third party doesn't help either; I'll vote for Harry Browne so maybe he'll get 1,050,442 votes instead of 1,050,441. Big deal.
It's a bit of a paradox, nobody's vote determines the election but if based on that everybody decided to stay home, the system wouldn't work. So why will I vote? The same reason I run seti@home and distributed.net clients, so that I can feel that at least in a small way I'm doing something constructive. Even though nobody would notice if I didn't, it makes me feel good.
Virtually every abuse of rights mentioned on /. (CDA, DMCA, Clipper chip, Carnivore, bogus patents, etc) is directly caused by government. Sure, sometimes corporations advocate some of them (like DMCA) but without government force to back them up they would be much less powerful. Browne's solution is to remove power from the government, so it would have no authority to pass the draconian laws that corporations might want (as a side effect, greatly reducing the incentives for corporations to lobby/bribe lawmakers). Nader's solution is to subordinate both business and individuals to the government, which assumes that neither he nor his successors would ever abuse that power. Nader actually seems like an honest guy, but I'm not willing to hand over that much power to anyone.
A weak government is an invitation for a large corporation to come in and abuse the people. (See Nike's Asian sweatshops.)
Is Nike forcing the people there to work at gunpoint? If not, then the workers are exercising their best available options. It may suck that their options are limited, but closing the "sweatshops" would make them worse off.
Governments are needed to make sure companies don't screw the workers by paying them less than the minimum wage (though even that wage is a piece of shit).
Minimum wages increase unemployment. A minimum wage of $X says to the unskilled worker "if your productivity is less than $X per hour, you cannot get a job". It also raises the cost of goods by artifically increasing labor costs. It's an inefficient and often counterproductive form of welfare.
Finally, what good is your bitching if you don't vote? Your vote DOES make a difference.
On that we agree.
Good for you, that's what I'm doing also. Remember, your vote is not going to decide the election. Bush or Gore is going to win regardless of whether you or I vote for Bush, Browne, or Cthulu. The truly wasted vote is when you vote for the lesser of two evils, because you have declared that you support something that you don't.
Go Harry!
This is not true. Most Republicans continued to support the line-item veto after Clinton was elected. Clinton supported it for obvious reasons, but many Democrats opposed it. As I recall, it was actually passed but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional a few years ago.
I've actually heard a semi-rational argument in support of this. It assumes that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to create lots of virtual worlds and populate them with virtual lifeforms who would have no idea they were inside a simulation. Since there would be many virtual worlds and only one real one, the probability is that an arbitrary lifeform is more likely to be in a virtual world than the real one. Not that I believe it, but interesting nonetheless...
But government programs are not efficient. If they were, then socialism would work. Instead, most people are better off under capitalism even with the disparate amount of wealth at the top.
Society is no poorer for having spent the money on space (though you can certainly argue the opportunity cost of not spending it elsewhere).
Exactly, that's the point. No money is actually "lost" in programs that pay farmers not to grow corn, but surely there is productivity that such programs destroy.
Assume your argument is true: taxes are eliminated, and your employer compensates by lowering your salary. That means the company's expenses go down, and their profits go up. What happens to these profits? They either get invested, creating more economic growth, or they go to the shareholders. In the second case, the shareholders will save or invest it themselves, and it means that you will get a better return on your own stocks.
Why not? This isn't a popularity contest, and you don't win a stuffed animal if you "choose" the winner. This election is not going to be decided by 1 or 1000 votes. Whether you or I vote for Browne or Bush has absolutely no effect on who will win. When you vote for Bush, you are explicitly saying, "yes, I do want more socialism, just not quite as much as Gore wants". When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
I agree that basing hiring decisions solely on whether you will be willing and/or able to work >>40 hour weeks is stupid and shortsighted. However, in some cases I can see the logic. Say you have two 30 year old applicants for a job with equal skills. Candidate A is single and has no problem working 60 hour weeks, while B has a wife and 3 kids and wants to work only 40 hours. How can you expect the company to ignore the fact that A is going to give them more for their money?
Being willing to work longer hours is equivalent to being willing to work for less money; it's just supply and demand. Many people seem to think that having a family and children should come with zero tradeoffs, but it can't.
And yes, even if well paid, 70-100 hour work weeks == crap treatment and abuse of a salaried worker. Just like you can't justify exposing workers to workplace hazards by claiming, "they're paid well and accepted the job"
I work around 70 hours a week (with occasional /. breaks...). I am paid well, I knew what would be involved when I signed up, and my work environment is fantastic. I really don't need you to inform me that I am being "abused" and to prevent me from making voluntary and informed choices.
Short answer: yes. Trying to convince someone to buy Coke instead of Pepsi does not involve changing his moral values, and is far more likely to occur than someone watching Die Hard and deciding that maybe murdering innocent people isn't so bad after all.
First, several recent studies have suggested that computers in schools have little or no impact on educational performance. Second, the amount of tech jobs is not dependent on how much the government spends. I could just as plausibly claim that Bush's tax cuts will give taxpayers the ability to buy more technology products, therefore increasing demand for tech workers.
Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!!
So does Gore. You're not going to find any sort of rational drug policy in the major parties.
I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done.
I currently live in Texas, and much appreciate not having a state income tax. And amazingly, children and old people aren't starving in the streets.
Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly.
Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned.
Bush is far from ideal, but Gore and Lieberman are no better.
I won't admit that, because I don't believe the government is trying to follow the law, which in this case means the Constitution. There is plenty of evidence for this position; the Communications Decency Act, the Clipper chip, crypto export controls, Know Your Customer, the meth anti-proliferation bill, etc, etc.
What I do take issue with, is when they distract from the central questions by bashing integrity of the FBI and all other involved parties.
The FBI and many other government agencies deserve to have their integrity questioned based on past activities. Very few people here seem to have any difficuly accepting that entities like the RIAA and MPAA are determined to remove consumers' rights in order to increase their own power. Why can this not be true for government as well?
Carnivore is unconstitutional on its face. It is the equivalent of bugging every telephone in the country and promising only to listen to the "bad" people.
I don't know why you're singling Bush out as being opposed to free speech. Gore and Lieberman are the ones running around announcing their plans to censor all entertainment media (that is, when they're not attending fundraisers in Hollywood). Also remember that Clinton and Gore enthusiastically supported the Communications Decency Act (unanimously struck down by a mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court) and the Clipper chip. Censorship is not really a Democrat vs Republican issue; neither party has any objection to abridging freedom if they think it will help them win votes from soccer moms or bible-thumpers. One of many reasons I'm voting Libertarian.
Why is that such an unreasonable course of action, as compared trying to hide and hoping that the gunman kills someone else instead of you? Here is a report (original source here) on a student who did exactly that, and was aided by his experience with guns: