Ranking the candidates

A discussion of Greg's score at:
http://SelectSmart.com/PRESIDENT

McCain vs. Bush

Surprised at my loyalties? My score gave me a 17% agreement with Bush, 47% w/ McCain. There's gotta be some differences, no?

• McCain: sponsor of tobacco bills that helped make net cost of tobacco to society show up in cost of cigs. McCain is attacked by National Smoker's Alliance for this, and said noteriety with this group is badge of honor. If the Congressional Republicans again decide to earmark $50 million for promoting tobacco sales in other countries, which candidate(s) do you think will complain?
• McCain wrote op-ed for NY Times: "The environment is not a liberal plot."
• McCain: coin-operated gov't is bad; Bush: "The Conservative Cause would be harmed" by changing how we finance elections. Is the people's perception based on ignorance?
• McCain: verbally pro-life, supports some legislative restrictions, not get full endorsements of all pro-life groups: best place to be on issue!
• McCain: criticized by other Reps for tax plan. I think that there was a great deal of moral soundness to Republican position in early 1980's, that of being really tough on spending. With a huge debt facing us, I think that the fiscally responsible response is debt payback, not tax cuts.

Greg: closer to Nader than Dems

I think that my libertarianesque responses on issues like defense spending and crime (I read as death penalty) put me closer to Nader than most Dems, who would rather accept defense contractor $$ than advocate too many cuts.

It's also interesting to me that one person I was conversing with on the mailing list (now defunct) of Evangelicals for Social Action voted for Nader. He was unquestionably pro-life and chastised me for having voted Democratic because of this, and his choice was Nader, of all people! Haven't seen anything specific from Nader on abortion.

Nader: left or libertarian or simply non-right?

I remember Steve that you once were very upset with Nader upon hearing that he advocated revoking of the concept of corporate charters. You said it wasn't very business-friendly. I reminded you that corporate charters were an inherently anti-libertarian thing, that it protects individuals from responsibility to damage to other's property and life. That is the difference between right and left libertarianism: right libertarianism judges events in how "business-friendly" they are.

Nader's no purist libertarian, as he mocked Guliani's attempt to sell off that taxpayer-funded garden park in NY City.

Here's some hard differences between Nader and the Republicans, and guess who's on the libertarian side of these arguments?

• Nader opposes Guliani's subsidies of specific, large corporations just to stay in NY City. Note that the complaint was of subsidies of cost of doing business, like electricity, and confined to specific large corps who threatened. This is not the same thing as an across the board low tax rate.
  http://www.nader.org/opinions/51599.html
  "This corporate socialism is for the rich only. Small and medium-size businesses don't qualify. These subsidies create competitive advantages for large corporations, which use the same city services as smaller businesses but don't pay a proportionate share of the taxes that finance them."
• Complains about corporate charters that give corporations more rights than persons.
  http://www.nader.org/opinions/oe6.19.96.html
• Nader says HMO musts be legally accountable for damages when they delay and deny medically necessary treatment.
  http://www.nader.org/releases/71599.html
  
• He advocates repeal of the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act, which shields nuclear corporations from damages to property that they may cause. He also complains about subsidies.
• He complains aobut the peso bailout by U.S. taxpayers. "In 1995, the Clinton administration orchestrated a nearly $50 billion bailout of the Wall Street interests which stood to lose billions with the Mexican peso devaluation."
• He complains about the U.S. taxpayer of the Asian crash. "As a result, the very U.S. banks which contributed to South Korea's crisis and received a U.S. taxpayer bailout now stand to buy up lucrative sectors of the South Korean economy."
• He's anti-IMF!
  http://commondreams.org/pressreleases/Sept98/091798c.htm
  

Nader: non-right

The Right hates Nader because he is not "business-friendly", not because he is to the left of Clinton on the size of gov't.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws