I was interested in responding to Clifton Fox's letter [Nov. 18] in which he claims that the 59 million and some odd number of votes in Bush's favor is a clear mandate for him to continue his policies.

Let's examine what those mandates would be in light of the current situation. Bush claims to be a fiscal conservative. Presumably, he means that he is prudent with taxpayer money and is a good steward of the resources available to him.

In the debate on Oct. 8, Bush said: "Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control."

Poor grammar aside, Bush also went to great lengths to make fun of John Kerry, saying: And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It's just not credible. You cannot believe it.

Well, John Kerry says many things that we shouldn't believe. But George Bush also says a great deal that we shouldn't believe.

Modern presidents spend far, far too much on the military since it goes for national offense, rather than national defense. This leaves America undefended at home while U.S. troops run around the world enforcing the reckless desires of American presidents.

Let's look at the yearly non-military spending by presidents since John F. Kennedy adjusted for inflation (ranked in order of spending increases):

Richard Nixon + 8.6 percent
John F. Kennedy + 8.3 percent
Lyndon Johnson + 6.7 percent
Gerald Ford + 6.2 percent
George W. Bush + 3.8 percent
George H.W. Bush + 3.5 percent
Jimmy Carter + 2.7 percent
Ronald Reagan + 2.1 percent
Bill Clinton + 1.6 percent

George W. Bush is a first-class spender. And he doesn�t have a democratic Congress to blame for it. Clinton has actually been the most conservative president since 1960.

Furthermore, when the debates� are controlled by the Republicrat duopoly, and the corporate media acts like a whore in relation to the duopoly, it figures that the people aren't able to hear from other presidential candidates such as Michael Badnarik or Ralph Nader.

People are left with the impression that there are only two choices on the ballot. I am sure most people who voted for either Bush or Kerry held their breath.

If you vote for Bush, you might as well vote for Kerry and vice versa.

Since I have been eligible to vote for president, I have never voted for a republican or democrat. They haven't given me any reason why I should vote for them.

Chris Fortner
Knoxville