Responses from another Bush voter:

1) Unfortunately, as a comp sci major, I didn’t get any poli sci courses, so I know only a very little about Straussian philosophy. I suppose if I was well-informed enough, that shouldn’t be an issue. I seem to recall that it hearkens back to the great philosophers for political influence. Not knowing who the key members of the administration are that would be influenced by Straussianism (although I would suspect Dick Cheney if I had to pick one), it becomes difficult to answer the question. I do think that you have picked up on the dissonance between the “regular-guy” persona and the ideal of the collective wisdom of the early philosophers. Bush certainly does not represent the philosopher type, and seems content to leave that in the realm of those who advise him. I don’t necessarily believe that makes him a puppet of the Straussians, as many seem to imply. I do believe that he makes his own agenda. However, I do think that he recognizes either the wisdom or the influence of some Straussian devotees and surrounds himself with these people to make use of their wisdom and influence. I’m sure there are many that would disagree with that.


2) Pretty much the same. Still thankful that we don’t have President Gore. (I know…lazy answer)

3) I agree with Redrum, I think he made the best decision that he could at the time with the intelligence that he had. Hindsight being 20/20, it was probably the wrong choice, but it was the best decision at the time. Now that we’re in the mess, I think he’s got a better grasp on what needs to be done to finish the job. It’s pretty naïve of Kerry to think that all sorts of countries are going to join a coalition and jump into the conflict just because they’re more politically aligned with him than Bush.

I realize that you will probably be disappointed with this answer because it still does not satisfy why we needed a pre-emptive war, but I won’t pretend that I’m informed enough to make judgement when a president, his advisors and staff, and congress all seemed to think it was justified at the time.

4) I don’t necessarily think homeland security would suffer as much under Kerry as the Bush camp is trying to scare everyone into believing. I do think that he would push for a significantly more socialistic government and that to me is “bad”. He would also tax the “wealthy” more. I’m not currently in that group (or anywhere close), but I like to think that someday I could be. If I were, I would not want the government to take a significantly larger portion of the earnings I worked so hard for. I would be giving a significant portion of my income to social and religious causes anyway, and I think I can best decide where my money should go. To be honest, there’s not a whole lot of Kerry’s ideas that I do agree with. I guess I support his desire to balance the budget, and I will fully support that should he be elected president. I don’t think it will be possible to do while keeping the promises he’s made, however, without significantly raising taxes. I’m not entirely opposed to raising taxes, if that’s what it takes, but I do think that we should try to recover the deficit by shrinking or streamlining government before resorting to a tax increase. I don’t think either candidate will do a good job there. I’ve worked with enough government agencies to see the waste and inefficiency that most of them operate under compared to a profit-based business. I think that when it comes to issues that are moral issues to me, he would vote the opposite way that I believe and that would be “bad.” I could ramble on for a while…but I’m sure you get the gist.

5) Probably coiled his “trouser snake” in a different spot that day so as not to make Kerry feel bad