>>BTW2, It certainly is nice to have a civil discussion with someone on this sort of topic. Civility seems to have been >a casualty of this election cycle.
>
>I agree, and I think Senator Kerry did a very civil thing in a very gracious manner yesterday; my daughter said she's voting for him next time because of his concession speech (she's only in 7th grade but...).
>
Kirk (and Kevin too),

I agree with Kevin that I doubt he'll run again. FWIW, I was hoping that Gore would run this time.

I think my biggest problem is manyfold.

First, I'm a fiscal conservative. IOW, run the government like I have to run my house, my budget. OTOH, Bush, IMV, isn't. The campaign portraited Kerry as a "tax and spend liberal". Yet, how are we to pay down the deficit if no additional revenue is gathered. Again, IMV, Bush is a "cut taxes and spend" liberal.

Second, Bush is not a "big government" conservative. I am. During his administration we've seen the largest expansion of government since the Johnson administration. Certainly, there's some credence to the argument that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was necessary. However, was it really necessary?

In August of 2002 I read an article in either a Time/Warner publication or another news magazine about September 11, 2001. In the article, it was revealed that the Clinton Administration had a report in hand indicating that there was information regarding a forth-coming terrorist attack on the United States. Not wanting to politicize the issue, it wasn't brought up during the 2000 campaign. It was, however, handed over to the incoming administration.

Since the Bush Administration has an "ABC" policy (Anybody but Clinton), it was pushed aside. In the summer of 2001, and this, again, is public knowledge, when a series of "red lights" went off about the forth coming attacks, they were ignored. Ignored despite the fact that they had information at hand. In fact, Bush took the entire month of August off on vacation.

To me, as a result, his statements that he puts the security of this country first, ring hollow.

Third, he just doesn't learn from his mistakes. The pretext for the war in Iraq, was weapons of mass destruction. There's no debate about it. The terms in April 2003 were that Saddam Huessein had to either destroy the WMDs (which didn't exist at the time) or leave the country. Since no WMDs existed, he couldn't destroy them, so why would he leave the country? After the fact, he tries to link the invasion with the War on Terrorism, but that isn't correct either. Both of these incidents are confirmed in official government reports.

Yet, when confronted by the question, "If you knew then what you know now, whould you do it again?" (paraphrased), he answers, "Yes!"

Fourth, conservative values come from the respect for the individual. It's the individual's right to make a choice. Yet, despite the fact that I'm personally against abortion, it is the individual's right to chose. Yet he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's the individual, who may or may not have the choice regarding their sexuality, to, as a consenting adult, enter into a long relationship with someone of the same sex. Yet he wants to, through a constitutional amendment, deny these people the same civil rights as hetrosexuals have.

Fifth, and this goes back to the "ABC" policy, during the planning for the Iraqi war, generals in the Pentagon told him that, under his plan, we had an insufficient force. This was based on the same ratios that were used during the Clinton Administration. Under the "ABC" policy, this wasn't acceptable. As a result, the number of troops deployed was less than it should have been and the number of casualities was and is higher.

Bush thought that we'd been in and out within 90 days. He thought we'd be accepted as liberators. 90 days had long past and we're still there and we're not thought of as "liberators" but "occupiers".

Sixth, and this is a personal opinion, rather than giving tax breaks to U.S. auto makers to develop safer, cleaner, and much more fuel efficient car, he wants to give them to oil companies. Rather than eliminate our reliance on a non-renewable resource from beyond our shores, he wants to keep us dependent on them.

I think that 6 is enough.