The Nepal Digest - the First Nepali e-Magazine
Year 15, Volume X, Issue 1, Published On Friday, October 29, 2004 (Kartik 13 2061 B.S), New York, USA
Home >> Politics: US Presidential Race Bush Vs. Kerry Support TND
Read Comments
Write Comments
Politics: US Presidential Race Bush Vs. Kerry
George W. Bush
John Kerry
Introduction
Age 58 60
Job President of the United States U.S. senator from Massachusetts
Family Wife, Laura; twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara. Wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry; two daughters and three sons.
Religion Methodist Catholic
Pets Dog, a Scottish terrier named Barney; a black cat named India Dog, a German shepherd named Cym
Running mate Dick Cheney, vice president of the United States John Edwards, U.S. senator from North Carolina
Issues
Abortion: Neither Bush nor Kerry support abortion. Bush thinks it should be against the law for a woman to have an abortion unless the woman has been a victim of rape or incest or if giving birth would put her life in danger. Kerry said he does not think he should turn his personal views about abortion into laws, and he thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
War in Iraq and war on terrorism: The decision to go to war in Iraq happened during Bush's time as president. Bush maintains that removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from his position, searching for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and getting rid of other terrorists are the best ways to prevent attacks on the United States, such as the ones that occurred Sept. 11, 2001. Kerry thinks that Bush should not have gone to war in Iraq without a strong alliance with other powerful countries. He also says it was wrong of Bush to go after Saddam when bin Laden was the one responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Education: Both candidates support No Child Left Behind, Bush increased the amount of money the government gives to education to help pay for the new law. Kerry says that Bush did not do enough and that schools need more money to successfully follow the law.
Environment Bush says he supports a Clear Skies plan, which has a goal of reducing power-plant emissions and helping states meet new standards for the quality of the air. Bush also likes a plan called Healthy Forests, which would let companies cut down trees in some national forests in exchange for taking out small trees and brush that are a fire hazard. Kerry says the initiative would allow plants to pollute the air more than current laws allow. Kerry wants to put back into place some older laws that do not allow logging parts of national forests that don't have roads.
Economy While Bush has been president, he gave Americans several tax cuts, so they don't have to pay as much of their money to the government. He also supports something called Jobs for the 21st Century, which will help train people in schools and community colleges so that they can get better jobs. Kerry has criticized Bush's tax cuts, saying that only rich people are paying fewer taxes and that the cuts did not help people who don't have as much money.

Kerry says he will make taxes go down for middle-class people, who do not have as much money as the rich, and for many U.S. businesses.



Based on Sarah Evan's "Bush and Kerry differ on issues such as the environment" on Stateman Journal of of Oct 27.

This article on "The Nepal Digest" was possible by support of readers like you. Would you like to support TND? Suggested donation is $20.00 but you can donate from $1.00 to $100.00.
Please write your comments below. Thank you.

(If you don't want to display your actual email address we can provide you with a yourname@thenepaldigest.org" email address. Please contact us at contact@thenepaldigest.org. Emails will be forwarded to your existing email)
 
Comments by Prakash Khadka from United States on Saturday, October 30, 2004 at 14:54 - IP Logged
Kerry Rocks! Bush Sucks!!

Comments by Kamala Sarup from United States on Monday, November 01, 2004 at 14:11 - IP Logged
It is a close election and no one knows who will win until Wednesday and maybe for days after the voting ends on Nov. 2 because of contested results.

I like Kerry because Bush and his advisors have not managed the Iraq War and fight against terrorism effectively. His mistakes have resulted in more blood and treasure lost, and higher oil prices, which affect the prices of good bought by ordinary Americans more than by rich ones. Thus, give the Kerry administration a chance to see if it can do better. Hard to see how it can do worse. Bush adopted a program of large tax cuts *and* increased defense spending now. Thus, current costs are paid by additional debt, which will be paid by later generations in the form of higher taxes, or inflation, or both. Why saddle our children and grandchildren with our costs? As an economic policy to stimulate a moribund economy by higher government spending and increased consumer demand for goods, the statistics on economic growth and unemployment showed that it has failed.Bush is allied with the "big money" segments of the republic (the upper 2%) at the expense of 98% of Americans. The result is a widening gap in income distribution that fosters more dissension among economic classes and less market demand that inhibit economic growth for everyone.I favor the Iraq War and a vigorous fight against radical muslims and communist terrorist.

Comments by Kamala Sarup from United States on Monday, November 01, 2004 at 14:14 - IP Logged
It is a close election and no one knows who will win until Wednesday and maybe for days after the voting ends on Nov. 2 because of contested results.
I like Kerry because Bush and his advisors have not managed the Iraq War and fight against terrorism effectively. His mistakes have resulted in more blood and treasure lost, and higher oil prices, which affect the prices of good bought by ordinary Americans more than by rich ones. Thus, give the Kerry administration a chance to see if it can do better. Hard to see how it can do worse. Bush adopted a program of large tax cuts *and* increased defense spending now. Thus, current costs are paid by additional debt, which will be paid by later generations in the form of higher taxes, or inflation, or both. As an economic policy to stimulate a moribund economy by higher government spending and increased consumer demand for goods, the statistics on economic growth and unemployment showed that it has failed.Bush is allied with the "big money" segments of the republic (the upper 2%) at the expense of 98% of Americans. The result is a widening gap in income distribution that fosters more dissension among economic classes and less market demand that inhibit economic growth for everyone.
Although, I favor the Iraq War and a vigorous fight against radical muslims and communist terrorist.

Comments by shrestha from Nepal on Monday, November 01, 2004 at 15:46 - IP Logged
good vision kamala jee.

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 10:21 - IP Logged
PART I (One):
Dear Editor, Thank you for bringing the positions of two "corporate candidates". Since you left out the "people's candiate", I'd like to help you by posting the following piece:
Name: Ralph Nader
Birth date: February 27, 1934
Education: Bachelor's degree, Princeton University, 1955; law degree, Harvard University, 1958
Military Service: Army, 1959
Career: Lawyer, Hartford, Connecticut, 1959-1964; college lecturer, Princeton University, 1961-1963, 1967-1968; consumer advocate, 1965-present; author of "Unsafe at Any Speed" and many other books, 1965-present; write-in presidential candidate, 1992; Green Party presidential nominee, 1996 and 2000
Family: Unmarried
Quote: "The dreaded supremacy of corporatism over civil institutions, stomping both conservative and liberal values alike, has broken through any remaining barriers by the two major political parties."
TBC (To be contd:)

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 10:22 - IP Logged
Part II (Two):
Nader mounts a fourth presidential bid
(CNN) -- Consumer advocate, lawyer, presidential candidate and critic of Democrats and Republicans alike, Ralph Nader bears many titles. Yet as he mounts his fourth bid for the presidency, Nader's candidacy is shadowed by the 2000 election and whether he helped elect President George W. Bush.
As the Green Party candidate in 2000, Nader won 2.74 percent of the national vote, placing third. But many Democrats blame him for siphoning off votes in key states, especially Florida, that might have gone to Democratic nominee Al Gore. Bush won Florida by 537 votes and won the election after a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court settled a protracted dispute over the Florida vote.
The possibility of Nader's candidacy contributing to Bush's re-election fuels a ferocious debate among Democrats, Nader supporters and other liberal activists.
Some former Nader supporters urged him to skip the 2004 election and are now saying a vote for Nader is a vote to re-elect Bush. Other liberal activists paint Nader as an out-of-touch liberal warrior driven by ego.
Nader disagrees. The Supreme Court, he says, cost Gore the election and he blames the former vice president for running a lackluster campaign.
"The Democrats should stop whining and go to work," he said in a CNN interview on March 30. "They should be landsliding Bush" in 2004.
Bush, he said, has a clear record against workers, consumers and the environment, and is a "big corporation in the White House disguised as a human being."
He contends both parties are captive to corporate interests. When announcing his campaign February 22 on NBC's "Meet The Press," he said he is running to "challenge the two-party duopoly" he believes is damaging American democracy. He also criticized the treatment of third party and independent candidates as "second-class citizens."
TBC (To be contd:)

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 10:23 - IP Logged
Part III (Three):
In Nader's view, the Democratic Party is part of the problem, having lost touch with its progressive heritage.
"The liberal intelligentsia has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests," he said.
A lifetime of advocacy
Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut in 1934, one of Rose and Nadra Nader's four children. His father, a Lebanese immigrant, owned and operated a restaurant where Nader worked in his youth. He has spoken Arabic since he was a child.
He attended Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor of arts degree in 1955. He went on to law school at Harvard University, graduating in 1958.
After a six-month stint in the Army in 1959, Nader traveled through Latin America, Africa and Europe. Nader began practicing law in Hartford, Connecticut. His career as a public advocate started with an article in The Nation titled "The Safe Car You Can't Buy." He also lectured on history and government at the University of Hartford from 1961-1963.
He was hired in 1964 by then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a paid consultant to the Labor Department. He worked on a federal government study on auto safety and helped a Senate subcommittee on the same subject.
In May 1965, Nader left the Labor Department to work on a book about auto safety. "Unsafe at Any Speed" launched him into the public spotlight. The book, published in November 1965, documented safety defects in U.S. cars and criticized the automobile industry's safety practices, specifically targeting the Corvair, which was built by General Motors.
Helped by the revelation that General Motors hired a private detective to investigate Nader's private life, the book became a best seller. Nader subsequently sued GM for invasion of privacy and eventually received $425,000 in an out-of-court settlement.
He used the money to expand his advocacy efforts. Nader's research on auto safety and his lobbying in Washington helped push Congress to pass the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. He also lobbied for the 1967 Wholesome Meat Act, which called for federal inspections of beef and poultry and imposed standards on slaughterhouses, the 1967 Freedom of Information Act and the 1970 Clean Air Act.
TBC (To be contd:)

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 10:24 - IP Logged
Part IV (Four):
In 1969, he helped found the Center for Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), a nonprofit organization staffed mostly by college, graduate and law students. Those students became known as "Nader's Raiders" and studied and issued reports on a variety of consumer issues.
The CSRL is now a consortium of a number of nonprofit groups, including the Consumer Project on Technology, Freedom of Information Clearinghouse, and the League of Fans, which examines how sports businesses operate.
In 1971, Nader founded Public Citizen, a nonprofit national consumer advocacy organization that aims to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts. Public Citizen remains in operation and is now headed by Joan Claybrook, a Nader protégé who headed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 1977 to 1981.
Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen in November 1980 and began to focus on issues relating to trade and corporate power. That same year, he founded the Multinational Monitor, a magazine that examines multinational corporations and their relationship with developing nations, labor and the environment.
The 1980s were a difficult time for Nader. His efforts to convince the federal government to regulate issues in the public interest conflicted with the Reagan administration's efforts to limit the power of federal agencies. Nader's older brother Shafeek died of prostate cancer in 1986. After his death, Nader developed a case of Bell's palsy that paralyzed the left side of his face for several months.
Nader dealt with the paralysis with his deadpan sense of humor, telling audiences at public events that "at least my opponents can't say I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth."
He has written or edited more than 25 books since the publication of "Unsafe At Any Speed." His personal financial disclosure in 2000 listed his net worth at close to $4 million, including $1 million of stock in tech giant Cisco Systems.
Such revelations prompted critics to label Nader a hypocrite for railing against corporations while personally profiting from its success. But in his disclosure, Nader said that aside from "modest personal expenses," he uses his income as a "de facto philanthropic fund" for his projects. He also said that he has consistently donated 50 percent of his adjusted gross income to charitable institutions, amounting to several million dollars since 1967.
"In short, monies I earn are for strengthening civil society," he said.
Nader is well known for his modest lifestyle. He lives alone in a Washington apartment and does not own a car. He never married and has no children. He told The New York Times in 1995 that he didn't want to be an absentee father or husband. "That would have been terrible," he said.
Activist turned candidate
Always registered as an independent, Nader first entered the political arena as a candidate in 1992 as a write-in candidate for president. In 1996, he agreed to run as the Green Party's candidate for president. He hardly campaigned or raised money, and received 685,128 votes, or 0.71 percent of the national popular vote.
Nader was the Green Party nominee again in 2000. He actively campaigned and raised money, and was supported by several high-profile celebrities. He significantly increased his national vote total, receiving 2,882,955 votes, or 2.74 percent. But it was the 97,488 votes Nader received in Florida that brought him the wrath of Democrats once Gore lost the state and the election.
Nader's campaign Web site lists multiple explanations for Gore's loss, including Bush's recount strategy in Florida, the controversial butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, the purging of tens of thousands of non-ex-felons from the Florida voter rolls, and Gore's campaign.
"Gore beat Gore," Nader said in a December 2003 CNN interview. "He didn't get Tennessee, his home state. That would have made him president. And he blundered in Florida and didn't ask for a statewide recount."
Nader says his 2004 candidacy will act as a "second front" against Bush and attract Republican voters angry with Bush over issues like corporate responsibility and the rising federal deficit.
"There's a real revolt brewing in conservative circles," Nader said in a CNN interview after he announced he was running. "And then there's ... the liberal Republicans, who never liked Bush to begin with."
Levels of support
However, Nader may not have the level of support among liberal activists that he received in 2000. The editors of The Nation published an open letter to Nader in the February 16, 2004, issue urging him not to run.
RalphDontRun.net, a Web site that originally urged him not to run, now urges potential Nader voters to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry instead.
TBC (To be contd):

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 10:25 - IP Logged
Part V (Five):
John Pearce, a Democrat who helped create the Web site, said in a CNN interview that the issues at stake in this election -- Bush's tax cuts, the budget deficit, the potential to nominate a Supreme Court justice -- are too much for progressive voters to risk voting for Nader.
"These are the kinds of issues that unify not just progressives, but centrists, and really are alarming such a wide range of people, that any risk of peeling off a million votes for a Ralph Nader candidacy from a Democratic candidate is something people just aren't willing to even consider this time around," he said.
Even former President Jimmy Carter -- who said Nader was such a trusted friend that he was once allowed to umpire a Carter family softball game down in Georgia -- urged him to get out of the race.
"When I was president, he gave me a lot of advice. And tonight, I want to return the favor by giving him some advice. Ralph, go back to umpiring softball games or examining the rear end of automobiles, and don't risk costing the Democrats the White House this year as you did four years ago," Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser in March.
Nader dismisses these arguments as well as other criticism of him as an ego-driven candidate.
"That means they're out of arguments," he said March 30 on CNN. "My compass comes from 45 million Americans who don't have health care after all these years."
Nader says his candidacy is simply another way to advocate issues that he has made his life's work.
"This is a commitment to justice," he said. "I've been working for 40 years on behalf of the health, safety and economic well being of the American people. I don't like citizen groups being shut out by both parties in this city, corporate occupied territory, not having a chance to improve their country."

Comments by Gautam Acharya from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 05:27 - IP Logged
Sirdar:
You spent hours pondering upon Nadar instead on something that would have actually made a difference. Not that I challenging Nadar's right to run but that how pointless it is. What a waste of time!

Comments by Gautam Acharya from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 05:33 - IP Logged
Sirdar:
Kerry and Bush were both corporate candidates, your are right. However after Bush's victory, what scares me the most is his intrusion into American's civil rights. Ashcroft has taken back all the rights of immigrants if any, Patriot act has threated all Americans to live as prisoners and now Bush is going to appoint 3-4 supreme court justices who will have to pass any form of litmus test. In this new team of justices Scalia will seem to be the liberal! For me, these were the main reasons to go for Kerry though he is just another corporate candidate.

Comments by Gautam Acharya from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 05:35 - IP Logged
in above posting please read
"who will have to pass any form of litmus test"
as
"who will NOT have to pass any form of litmus test"

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 09:53 - IP Logged
Let me drop a bait and see if this fish called Gautam bites it :)
A waste of time is when you are barking at someone who is deaf and mute to other people's views, and
blindly biased to their own self-serving hollow.
Fact: Nadar posting took 90 seconds.
It seems like Gutam agrees that Bush and Kerry both are corporate candidates. Then bashes Nadar posting then bashes Bush and claims voted or went for Kerry even though Kerry is a corporate candidate.
Your comments about Bush, Civil Rights, Patriot Acts, Ashcorft, SC Justices, Scalia and others lack homework on your part. They are no different than sweeping judgment of a biased left-wing sympathizer. Are you?
You want to close the gap so discussions are goal and task oriented? Lets talk. Otherwise let's not create drama and animosity.
BTW, have you considered working as a "runner" for a left-wing democratic candidate? If you've drunk their koolAid, may be you should consider it.
Food for thought: When Nadar was partially paralized on half of his face (temporarity) he was quoted as saying, "Unlike Democrats and Republicans, I only speak from one side of my mouth".
Watch my words - Nadar is and will be a voice Dems and Reps will have to reckon with!

Comments by Gautam Acharya from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 12:30 - IP Logged
Of course..big shot...there you go again, just as predictable as always .. the reason no one debated Nadar is becuase he belongs to 1% minority ..just as you are. No good for debate.

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United States on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 13:09 - IP Logged
You are wrong Gutam and you have your right to be wrong!
Vote wise Nader is 1%. Idea wise - do your homework.
Fact: Nadar's ideas have been adopted many times by both Reps and Dems over the last 40 years.
I admire Kerry for his spirited campaign. Nevertheless I am not impressed with his 25+ years in Senate that went on debating and debating and some more debating..... no different than your debates that are TASKless and GOALless.
Debates are good. However Debates with no end-results are worthless. Translate that to your "waste of time" category if you would like.
Food for thought: Senators debate, Presidents execute!
Keep debating....I got some work to do :)

Comments by NepaliPandit from Nepal on Sunday, November 21, 2004 at 19:15 - IP Logged
होइन को हो यो? सधै आफुलाइ मात्र ठीक बाकी संसार ... भन्ने ?!

Comments by Sirdar_Khalifa from United Kingdom on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 09:00 - IP Logged
I have not had a nice chukle in a while. Thank you NepaliPundit! How should I reward you today? :)


*Indicates required fields
Name*:
Country*:
E-mail:
Bold Italic Underline Emoticon Smilies
Comments*:
(max. 5000 characters)		 (Tip: To change paragraph, press spacebar once and then hit Enter.)
Character Count: