First off, after your Halliburton comment, you need not have told us your a
Dem. PUH-LEEZ.

Next...



On the other hand, a Kerry administration would probably keep FAA a
public service, would not be as paranoid with security, would push
localities to keep their airports from private developers, but their tax
and regulatory policies will probably make it harder to buy airplanes
which you would probably be able to fly more freely if you could buy one.


Democratic candidates around here have ALWAYS been in league with the
developers who pad their campaign chests. In fact, many of the DEM
candidates ARE developers. This area is one where the GOP has been better.
They put property rights over big business in most cases. The airports
having been allowed to operate for years, now have legitimate easements over
the surrounding space.


So as far as the presidential candidates and GA go, it's six of one,
half dozen of another. I don't think the interests of GA will be much
of a factor in determining my vote, and it probably shouldn't be for you
either. Most likely people will see it from the prism of their general
views. If you are a Republican you probably think Bush is better for
GA, and if you are a Democrat you probably think Kerry is.

So for everyone, it's going to come down to general philosophy. From
what I see on the newsgroups, GA pilots tend to be conservative and
Republican (my primary flight instructor was a Republican candidate for
U.S. Congress in 2002), which doesn't surprise me given that it's
probably a group that skews wealthier.


I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self
determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian
beliefs. The money comes from the same place.


However, in my opinion Republican GA pilots are in total denial over how
much their hobby depends on government subsidies and government
intervention. The same people who demand less taxes or less regulation
in general are right there demanding that the feds do something about
the closure of Meigs field or put more subsidy into their local
municipal airport. Yeah, some try to feed their denial by fooling
themselves into thinking that the tax they pay on AVGAS funds it all
(even the ones that don't buy AVGAS say that , but the reality is that
GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.


This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is
that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control
and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were
more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside), then the buses would have
to merge with the cars. Commercial air travel would be much more expensive
and rare. This may not be good, but don't then place the costs of this
choice on the backs of GA. You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your
friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open
airports can and do make profits, yet the they send their fuel taxes to the
government.

That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
and support while proclaiming that we need less government.


Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to
the national and major carriers. Don't blame me for using class B radar
service. I didn't create the need for the class B airspace - the big boys
did. If it were all GA, we could simply put up a slow fly zone, and see and
avoid.

At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
not even in the top 10 of importance.


I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had
better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support.