A Challenge

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, kids, give me a reason to vote FOR your candidate. This goes for both sides.

 

So, Bush supporters: Kerry's inconsistencies are irrelevant. Kerry's military service is irrelevant. The actions of the DNC or 527's is irrelevant.

 

Kerry supporters: The actions of the RNC or 527's is irrelevant. Anything involving Bush is irrelevant.

 

Reasons, kids, Reasons.

 

Hell, I'll get us started. That's the kind of guy I am:

 

Why one should vote for Bush

 

1) We are in a War on Terror and Bush, in my eyes, is stronger on this key issue. He changed policy and is taking the battle to the terrorists rather than waiting for them to come to us. He is making courageous stands, even if they're not popular. A leader is not one who does what whatever people want --- but tries to show them what SHOULD be done.

 

2) Economy is in full recovery. The rot in the system from the dot-com debacle and the accounting sacandals has been resolved and people are being punished for it. Lowering taxes does work. He is following Clinton's lead and is still keeping the internet tax free --- a move that I could not conceivably be more supportive of.

 

3) Tort reform. I do believe that tort reform is a much needed change. Reforms on such things as class-action suits (where the victims receive very little money while attorneys make a killing), punitive damages (logically, they should go the gov't rather than the person filing the suit), and liability (why the hell should obstetricians be liable for cerebral palsy when virtually nobody can actually state that they can cause it?) I do feel that the only hope for possible tort reform is with Bush.

 

4) Tax reform. Even if Bush and Hastert's ambitious proposal cannot happen and is not feasible --- a serious discussion about major tax reform is long overdue. The tax system has become a net burden on the overall economy.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Good topic, Mike, and hopefully one that will be non-partisan, based on the guidelines.

 

Since I'm not voting for either major candidate, though, I'm not going to argue for either of them. I do plan to learn a few things from this thread, though, so make sure your posts are enlightening, kids.

[2GOLD 0]

Good topic, Mike, and hopefully one that will be non-partisan, based on the guidelines.

 

Since I'm not voting for either major candidate, though, I'm not going to argue for either of them. I do plan to learn a few things from this thread, though, so make sure your posts are enlightening, kids.

 

I'm with you on this situation. I think a topic like this will be very helpful for those of us who are either not voting or on the fence.

 

I'm quite interested in some of the reasons presented.

[Styles 0]

As a registered independent, here is why I am voting for Bush based soley on his merits rather than Kerry's shortcomings as per Mike's rules. Upfront the most important issue is the War on Terror because if someone is trying to kill you, nothing else is important, once that's settled, the economy is second most important, if you're safe you need to have a good quality of life, once that's settled you can look at social issues that effect different parts of society. With that said:

 

-#1 priority is security and the War on Terror. Whether people want to deny it or not, we ARE in a war with very dangerous people who don't play by the rules. It would be unprecedented to change Presidents in the middle of a war and would be foolish to do so. The current administration has been here for and since September 11th, so all intelligence and strategy has resided with them. The months it would take to tranfer all that information over to a an all new administration could be crippiling for our security. We don't need our security compromised to allow for a learning curve. FDR once wisely said that you don't change horses in the middle of a race.

 

-President Bush has kept us safe. Since the intial attack there have been no others in the US. Period. His administration has implemented sweeping changes designed to make us safe like The Department of Homeland Security, The Terror Alert System, The Patriot Act, etc. And they are working. We are rounding up more and more of the badguys and many potential threats we have heard about and never will hear about have been and because they have been thwarted.

 

-President Bush does not compromise on what's in America's best interests. I like knowing we have a leader who will have only America's best interests in mind, and while he will not allow foreign leaders with their own selfish agendas to influence our policy, he welcomes and encourages willing countries to join us in our efforts. Similarly he is not afraid to launch a pre-emptive strike. Wherever you fall on the Iraq war and how it's been carried out, getting to our enemies BEFORE they can become a threat and compromise our security is just good strategy. Questionable intelligence aside, he took what he was given and acted on it.

 

-Similarly, President Bush doesn't care what you think. Maybe I should rephrase that, what I mean is he has clear stances on the issues, and does not flip flop on them to be more popular with the masses. He BELIEVES in what he's doing and that's much more important that playing to the opinion polls.

 

-Otherwise, I agree with Mike that tort reform is essential to reforming our health care system, and for protecting small businesses. President Bush actively seeks tort reform to protect good doctors and small business owners. This is a desperate problem because lawsuits are out of control in this country, doctors in certain fields like OB/GYNs are becoming harder to find, and inusrance premiums are going through the roof just to protect themselves. The increased charges are passed on to the citizens and thus no one can afford good medical care. Similarly, small businesse can not afford to stay in business while dealing with those same crippiling costs. These same businesses provide jobs and help the economy. His opponent on the other hand put a notorious trial lawyer on his ticket, infamous for his record setting lawsuit wins based on "junk science", making himself filthy rich in the process. There would be no hope for change in that scenario (Did I break the rules there?)

 

-The economy IS improving, and lower taxes are a part of that. Everyone beneifts from lower taxes. Especially the middle class who are hit hardest because the tax code is pretty leniant with who is considered "rich" and the middle class can't afford the taxes as much as the "real rich". If you earn money, you should be able to keep more of it, invest it, do what you like. President Bush believes that and will not raise taxes on Americans who can't afford it.

 

-Most social issues are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of his stances on things like abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, religion, etc. It's all irrelevant. The War on Terrorism and the Economy are what's most important. And those things won't change significantly either way since the country is so divided on them. Unless you are somehow directly effected by one of those issues, you shouldn't care, because you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

Hows that?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I am voting for John Kerry in November because:

 

1. EDUCATION: I like how he is against the unions on some of his ideas, including giving superintendants more reason to fire based upon performance in testing, graduation rates, etc. He's for most standardized testing, which I believe is necessary in a lot of schools. An example from his own state: The Massachusetts Comprhensive Assessment System Tests, aka MCAS. Students are tested in fourth, fifth, eighth, and tenth grades. Tenth graders MUST pass English and Math to graduate. (My problem with the test: no provisions for students with learning disabilities who otherwise would graduate.)

 

I also like that in his provisions under education, those who would work in public service for two years would be able to attend college tuition-free for four years towards an undergraduate degree. This provision also stems from a program in MA. There is also a possible $4000 College Tax Credit. In other words, seemingly, my vision as to how both elementary and secondary education meshes well with Kerry's.

 

2. NATIONAL SECURITY: To be honest, I prefer an America that is far more diplomatic than the one I see today. Diplomacy MAY NOT always be the best option for a situation; however, it may also broker a peace or, at least, a beginning for a mending between two unwilling sides. Kerry has said on many times that he would have gone into Iraq if he knew what he does now. Do I agree with all of that? No. But I do think, that had he taken the time to fully investigate the situation before hand, perhaps things would not be as drawn out today.

 

Yes, a lot of what-ifs there, and hindsight is a perfect 20/20.

 

I also think that having America being respected by more countries helps, instead of being feared due to its military might, which has been challenged today. The Middle East isn't just a large, vast dump of human wasteland. The only way terrorism can be fought is attempting to not encourage it. That starts by examining not only our enemies, but ourselves. I've previously posted my thoughts with my Religious Fundamentalism paper...it's around here somewhere, and if need be, I'll repost the link.

 

3. INDEPENDENT ENERGY: And here's one that hits close to home. This is somewhat related to point two, as American dependence on foreign oil keeps us consuming in the Middle East. The fact of the matter is, there are technologies available with higher start-up cost, but perhaps are more cost-effective over the long term, to power America. Wind power is beginning to gain steam here in the Northeast, as 130 towers are being prepared to be built offshore to power Cape Cod. Kerry best matches that, while also giving the possibility of nuclear energy in the United States. I think nuclear energy, along with renewable sources from the environment, are going to be the technologies of energy to move America more towards a cleaner, yet safer, way to provide power.

 

Anyways. Those are my big 3. I know, no health care? No economy? Nah.

 

--Ryan

...awaiting the first "hippie" post...

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm........I guess Nader.

 

Ralph Nader Opposed the Invasion & Presents a Plan for Peace and an End to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq

 

The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, huge financial costs, and diminished US security around and from the Islamic world. The faulty and fabricated rationale for war has the US in a quagmire. Already more than $155 billion has been spent, adding to huge Bush deficits, when critical needs are not being met at home. We should not be mired in the occupation of Iraq risking further upheavals when our infrastructure, schools and health care are deteriorating. Four years of free public college and university tuition for all students could be paid for by $155 billion.

 

Opposition to Media Bias and Media Concentration

 

The mass media in the United States is extremely concentrated, and the messages that they send are too broadly uniform. Six global corporations control more than half of all mass media in our country: newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. Our democracy is being swamped by the confluence of money, politics and concentrated media. We must reclaim our democracy from the accelerating grip of big-money politics and concentrated corporate media. This requires real campaign finance reform, which means public financing of public elections; some free access to ballot qualified candidates on television and radio; vigorous antitrust regulation and enforcement; ending broadcasters' free licensed use of the public airwaves; and the reversion of some organized time on our publicly owned airwaves to establish audience-controlled radio and TV networks to ensure the diversity of voices and solutions necessary for a really free press and a true civic democracy.

 

Restoration and Expansion of Civil Liberties & Constitutional Rights

 

Civil liberties and due process of law are eroding due to the “war on terrorism” and new technology that allows easy invasion of privacy. Americans of Arab descent and Muslim-Americans are feeling the brunt of these dragnet, arbitrary practices. Mr. Nader supports the restoration of civil liberties, repeal of the Patriot Act, and an end to secret detentions, arrests without charges, no access to attorneys and the use of secret “evidence,” military tribunals for civilians, non-combatant status and the shredding of “probable cause” determinations. They represent a perilous diminishment of judicial authority in favor of concentrated power in the executive branch. Sloppy law enforcement, dragnet practices are wasteful and reduce the likelihood of apprehending violent criminals. Mr. Nader seeks to expand civil liberties to include basic human rights in employment and truly equal rights regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion

 

Expand Worker's Rights by Developing an Employee Bill of Rights

 

The rights of workers' have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give worker's – the backbone of the US economy – the rights they deserve. Workers need a living wage – not a minimum wage; access to health care and no unilateral reductions in medical benefits and pensions for current employees and retirees. Employers should not be able to avoid these benefits by hiring “temporary workers” or “independent contractors.” The privacy of employees needs to be vigorously protected. The notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed. It has resulted in less than 10% of the private workforce being unionized, the lowest in 60 years and the lowest percentage in the western world. Non-union workers need upgraded rights against the likes of Walmart.

 

A Crackdown on Corporate Crime and Abuse

The US needs to crack down on corporate crime, fraud and abuse that have just in the last four years looted and drained trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders and consumers. Among the reforms needed are resources to prosecute and convict the corporate executive crooks and to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power; pay back ill-gotten gains; rein in executive pay; and enact corporate sunshine laws, among others.

 

 

A Family Farm — Consumer Agricultural Policy

American agriculture is being dominated by two contrary trends in the 21st Century. First, conventional family farm agricultural production is being destroyed by low prices and lack of market access due to mergers, acquisitions by big agribusinesses and their monopsony power over farmers. Second, there is a boom in more sustainable agricultural production and consumption due to increased consumer awareness and demand for healthy, fresh, and nutritious food. Federal policy must focus on the farm and food system as a continuum that provides many benefits. We must advance the production, marketing, use and disposal of food and fiber in accordance with consumer, environmental, worker and family farm standards of justice and sustainability. Additionally, we must challenge misallocation of resources caused by the growing concentration and wealth by agribusiness, chemical, biotechnology and financial corporations over the food and fiber economy. This entails shifting government policy to provide research and information relevant to independent food producers, organic farmers, insuring open and competitive markets, promoting new food infrastructures, and preventing pollution and degradation of natural resources.

 

Nader is also in favor of ending the War on Drugs.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Readers digest version.

 

I'm voting for Bush because he's stronger on defense and fighting terrorism. He also has imo the economy moving forward.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm not going to participate in this because it involves thought, but I won't insert any smart-ass comments either...

[Guest nikowwf]

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for because we still have 60 more days to hear what they have to say. I'd recommend others use those 60 or so remaining days too.

 

niko

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Why I'm voting for neither, and exercising my right to vote for no one.

 

Bush

Any credit given to him for the rising economy is mostly undeserved, imo, the tax credit did not have the re-investment effect that was intended (studies show people just spent it for a one-time increase and were not Ricardian equivalent). If anything has helped stimulate the economy, it has been the increased military spending. However, keeping a President in while the economy is improving is a good idea (see, Clinton, Reagan,Eisenhower) despite lackluster records elsewhere.

 

Bush loses my support due to his social agenda, I see economic and personal freedom being one and the same. We are seriously denying rights to persons of foreign descent as well as those who practice a different sexuality from the quote norm. I am also in disagreement with his policy on stem cell research: no government effort can thwart technological development, so we might as well embrace it and work with it.

 

Summary: Economy (good) Social (bad)

 

Kerry

I'm more comfortable with Kerry's stances on social issues (see my problems above). I feel that if he were President we'd see a serious redress of the problems of the Patriot Act as well as some civil liberties restored. However, Kerry's foreign and economic policy seems flawed. In particular, his focusing on protectionist measures per outsourcing would only serve to retard the growth rate of the economy looking forward. His support of unions indicates that he does not support the unemployed, as union theory correctly infers that benefits derived from union behavior only apply to those employed and in the union (insider-outsider theory)

 

Summary: Economy (bad) Social (good)

 

Since I'm registered in Georgia, I know that it will go Bush (I mean, our former Governor Zell Miller (D) is a keynote speaker for the Republicans). If it was a swing state, I would absentee vote in for Bush.

 

Since it's not, I get to exercise my preferred option.

Edited August 30, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I might reluctantly vote for John Kerry in November because:

 

1) War on Terrorism/Homeland Security

 

John Kerry has pledged to provide full funding for first-response units (i.e. local police and firefighters), which is something that the current administration has been lacking in. Kerry/Edwards also has some good ideas about extending our border and transportation security. From the website:

 

Protect our Borders and Shores

At our ports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will improve loading facility security while improving the accuracy and timing of transmitted and shared data about contents, location, and chain of control regarding a container shipment. At our airports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will ensure adequate security for air cargo, tons of which goes uninspected today, and ensure that screenings at airports continue to become more effective. At our borders, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use technology and work with Canada and Mexico to improve border security while speeding up legal and secure passages across our border.

 

These issues are important, considering the stories we've had of people sneaking contraband aboard planes to show that they can do it; I, for one, can assure you that airport security is still lax, and it's well documented how pathetic our security is around nuclear plants and other high-risk targets. I am very confident that a Kerry administration would tighten those reigns.

 

2) A commitment to fiscal responsibility

 

We have a very real problem in the deficit that will, eventually, start to bog down and stagnate our economy. Being that I'm about to enter the work force for good, this is a particularly important issue for me; President Bush has given nothing but empty rhetoric about balancing the budget and has consistently given us record deficits. Kerry, on the other hand, provides a plan to accomplish these goals:

 

Responsible Pay Plans For Discretionary Proposals. The Kerry-Edwards discretionary spending proposals will be paid for by freezing or cutting non-priority programs, which will save a substantial amount over the next ten years. In addition, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use offsets to fund proposals. Some examples:

 

Extend Superfund (saves $17 billion over ten years)

Collect royalties for mineral rights on Federal lands (saves $1 billion over ten years)

Cut electricity use by the Federal government by 20 percent in 10 years (saves $14 billion over ten years)

Cut subsidies to high-income corporate farmers

Freeze the Federal travel budget (saves $10 billion over ten years)

Reduce the number of contractors employed by the Federal government by 100,000 (saves $50 billion over ten years). The Federal government employed 5.6 million contractors in 1999 - more than three times the number of civil servants. The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce the number of contractors by 100,000.

 

Restrain Spending Growth. John Kerry and John Edwards are committed to ensuring that domestic discretionary spending does not grow faster than inflation. (This excludes defense, homeland security, health, education, Medicare, Social Security, and other mandatory programs). As president, John Kerry will propose two new budget rules to help ensure that Congress works to solve tough problems and that spending does not grow on auto-pilot:

 

Constitutional Line-Item Veto Power. This will allow the president to sign a bill while singling out specific spending items and tax expenditures for disapproval. Those items would then return to Congress for an expedited up-or-down vote, forcing members of Congress to approve new pork-barrel spending on an individual basis.

 

Budget Caps to ensure that spending does not exceed inflation. As president, John Kerry will propose a budget that funds its priorities without allowing spending to grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending. Specifically, John Kerry will favor an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation. Again, such a cut would not apply to defense, homeland security, education, Social Security, Medicare, or other mandatory programs.

 

3) A commitment to finding alternative forms of energy

 

President Bush has shown that he has little -- if any -- interest in exploring alternative energy solutions. I firmly believe that one of the keys to a stable relationship with our neighbors is energy independence. We would no longer bankroll the Saudi monarchy, nor would we have to worry about environmental destruction caused by drilling in ANWR or other domestic oil reserves. I may be in the minority here, but I don't want to live in a country whose environment is completely scarred by our industry. I believe that the quality of life is, in part, determined by your surroundings and environment. If we live in a disgusting, dirty country, the quality of life will be infinitely worse than if we live in one whose natural beauty is able to shine through.

 

Increase Renewable Energy Production. The Kerry-Edwards plan will ensure that 20 percent of America's electricity is produced from renewable sources by 2020. Just as domestic renewable energy reduces oil dependence, it can also create electricity and enhance our electricity markets. And growth in these new technologies will create quality jobs, as well as goods and services for export. To increase renewable energy production, the Kerry-Edwards Energy Plan will provide:

 

Incentives for producers. No single solution can meet all of our society's future energy needs - we will need a diverse group of energy technologies. Predictable and stable federal policies are critical to achieving this goal. A key priority will be ensuring that the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and biomass is applicable to the full array of renewable technologies, since the unpredictability of frequent short term extensions of the PTC has greatly hindered investment and expansion of the industry in the United States.

 

Incentives for investment. Like any other business development, clean energy technologies and projects need capital to get off the ground. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that we can improve access to financing for clean energy and will work with the investor community to find ways to encourage additional investment.

 

Funding and support for more research. John Kerry and John Edwards will increase funding available to research renewable energy, offering the prospect of both technical advances and the development of an enhanced supply chain.

 

 

Those are my current top 3 reasons why I'm leaning towards Kerry.

[Vyce 0]

Umm........I guess Nader.

*cackles evilly*

 

The plan is working....

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm........I guess Nader.

*cackles evilly*

 

The plan is working....

well, except for the fact that California isn't a swing state. Plus, I am a new voter, so it isn't taking AWAY from Kerry when I was never a voter of a democrat before. And contrary to what republicans pray and hope for, Arnold will NOT be delivering CA to Bush..

[Guest GreatOne]

Why would I vote for Bush? Simple.

 

Identity: He makes mental mistakes, as do we all (so he's not Clinton/FDR on the podium, so what?), but he also brings a positive vibe that Clinton, to his credit, had as well. The point of this thread is not to dwell on the opposition I know, but every time I hear Kerry speak it makes me feel like I'm one of the doomed passengers in the famed To Serve Man episode of The Twilight Zone, 'IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!' (No more JFK mentions in this post I promise).

 

Let's see Bush is smiling most of the time as opposed to wearing a major piss-on, I suppose he's just, as Axl Rose would say, laughing at the suckers as he pisses them all away, right? Well my roommate came up with that one, but then again he's a damn idiot.

 

I'd go for that one above all, and actually, you know, showing resolve. Not only talking the talk but walking it dry too is a big plus with me if you couldn't tell.

[Guest Paul H.]

Kerry's a flip-flopper and he'd prolly be weak on Security despite what Democrats say.

 

But Bush gets no love on..

 

1.Amnesty for Illegals.

2.Out-sourcing is good for us?

3.The enviorment.

 

 

I wanna see Bush put that ban on same-sex marriage and get rid of affirmative action.I don't think he will touch abortion and will prolly keep the game plan on Iran.N.Korea,Syria..

 

Like it or not Bush's legacy will eclipse Clinton's(I like dude)

[spiny norman 0]

Kerry's a flip-flopper and he'd prolly be weak on Security despite what Democrats say.

 

But Bush gets no love on..

 

1.Amnesty for Illegals.

2.Out-sourcing is good for us?

3.The enviorment.

Are you saying that's what you don't like about Bush's policies, or expressing your distaste that nobody else has mentioned them?

 

If the former is the case, what about them do you like? If this is true I'm particularly interested in your liking Bush based on his environmental policies (which to me is one of the main reasons I dislike him).

[Guest Paul H.]

I DON'T like his policies on the enviorment,out-sourcing,and whatvever else is there.

[Guest Paul H.]

How would we get rid of frivilous law-suits?

 

I've always said it shoud be law that you cannot sue if the law hasn't been broken and that their should be a cap on the money that they sue for..? So what exactly would Bush do?

[NoCalMike 0]

Why would I vote for Bush? Simple.

 

Identity: He makes mental mistakes, as do we all (so he's not Clinton/FDR on the podium, so what?), but he also brings a positive vibe that Clinton, to his credit, had as well. The point of this thread is not to dwell on the opposition I know, but every time I hear Kerry speak it makes me feel like I'm one of the doomed passengers in the famed To Serve Man episode of The Twilight Zone, 'IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!' (No more JFK mentions in this post I promise).

 

Let's see Bush is smiling most of the time as opposed to wearing a major piss-on, I suppose he's just, as Axl Rose would say, laughing at the suckers as he pisses them all away, right? Well my roommate came up with that one, but then again he's a damn idiot.

 

I'd go for that one above all, and actually, you know, showing resolve. Not only talking the talk but walking it dry too is a big plus with me if you couldn't tell.

Please don't vote.

[Gert T 0]

Good stuff so far, I voted first time in 2000, and I am a registered Republican because I voted for McCain in the primaries, but Al Gore in the election. I am still undecided right now.

[Guest GreatOne]

Why would I vote for Bush? Simple.

 

Identity: He makes mental mistakes, as do we all (so he's not Clinton/FDR on the podium, so what?), but he also brings a positive vibe that Clinton, to his credit, had as well. The point of this thread is not to dwell on the opposition I know, but every time I hear Kerry speak it makes me feel like I'm one of the doomed passengers in the famed To Serve Man episode of The Twilight Zone, 'IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!' (No more JFK mentions in this post I promise).

 

Let's see Bush is smiling most of the time as opposed to wearing a major piss-on, I suppose he's just, as Axl Rose would say, laughing at the suckers as he pisses them all away, right? Well my roommate came up with that one, but then again he's a damn idiot.

 

I'd go for that one above all, and actually, you know, showing resolve. Not only talking the talk but walking it dry too is a big plus with me if you couldn't tell.

Please don't vote.

OK, duder...........

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

well, except for the fact that California isn't a swing state.

Now now, the latest poll shows Bush within 30 points of Kerry.

 

FUCK -- sorry I broke my promise...

[Styles 0]

How would we get rid of frivilous law-suits?

 

I've always said it shoud be law that you cannot sue if the law hasn't been broken and that their should be a cap on the money that they sue for..? So what exactly would Bush do?

In short, President Bush supports:

 

Medical Liability Reform. The President proposes to address the skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums through national adoption of proven minimum standards to make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and timely. A more fair, predictable and timely medical liability process speeds compensation to patients, reduces health care costs, and improves access and quality of health care.

 

Obviously this is the most pressing need in tort reform, since frivelous medical malpractice lawsuits effect our medical care and make it so unaffordable and victimize doctors who go out of practice to protect themselves.

 

John Kerry, on the other hand chooses notorious trial lawyer John Edwards, who made his millions by accusing doctors with "junk science", further raising our costs and his income, smiling all the way to the bank.

 

I know who I think has a more sincere grasp on the issue.