Bush's history of tort reform in Texas indicates what he might try to accomplish in his second term. I'd agree with the sentiment on the following blog that it might be the single issue where Bush is demonstrably better than Kerry, if by better you mean limiting damages.
Link after the jump...
<!--break-->
<a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001657.html">overlawyered.com</a>
I don't know if limiting damages is a good idea. We don't tell businesses that they are only allowed to make $200 million a year... Does a person pay taxes on monetary awards from court cases?
Not naming names, if it's OK with rladew; people are not voting for Bush in our peer group, true, but people are not voting for Bush in his supposed "ideology" group.
Kerry has the same problem, BTW, I think he's only got 80% to 85% of the Democratic vote.
_______________________________
<b><i>If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black</b></i>
The legal system gives validity to the economic system. In fact, the idea of a corporation is entirely constructed within the legal system. By imposing limit, it follows that we are meddling with the system. Not very laisez faire?
______________________________
<b><i>If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black</b></i>
I still have no love for people that tie courts up with bullshit though...
_______________________________
<b><i>If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black</b></i>
What's the saying? Everyone despises lawyers until they need one.
Some people get steamed that lawyers get paid, others get steamed that people have no voice in our corporate-driven culture. I'm sure there are plenty of greedy lawyers out there who make more money than they're worth, just like the greedy CEOs and board members who make more than they are worth.
There are cheats in every system, what is the benefit from limiting the one system we have in this country that is a useful tool in exposing these cheats?
I like to count myself as the secular minded small government type of person who ends up voting republican. I dont see why it would be a better idea for me to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning.
Bush, warts and all, is a better choice for smaller govt folk than Kerry is, any day of the week.
______________________________
<b><i>If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black</b></i>
______________________________
<b><i>If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black</b></i>
Experience shows that Bush as an advocate for small government has to be a leap of faith at this point. Kerry's not a small government type either, but having a (D) at the White House offsets the (R) of the legislature. That's a pretty sound & sane fiscal argument, I think.
I liked the posting in question because it:
a) agrees with my position on Bush's fiscal policies
b) points out that tort reform might tbe the only thing of value that could come from a second term of Bush 43
Point b) is interesting in that maybe there is no difference in how Kerry and Bush would wage the GWOT. Even if Bush goes, we're still in Iraq, and it's unlikely it'll clear up overnight. Bush in power might make it harder for him to deploy troops into another adventure, e.g., would the country let him invade Iran right now?