I’m just curious of what the majority is leaning towards with the election about 8 months away. I can’t vote, which is a bummer. However, I’m still interested.
I just got the poll up.
i want a.b.b (anybody but bush) to win, there has never been a president that has broken more treaties than him, and his administration is just bad. Even his own advisors (as in Richard Clarke) don’t think he is doin a good job. Plus i thought republicans were always critical of democrats for spending too much money on programs they don’t see as “useful” but why is it under this republican administration that we have turned a record surplus into a record deficit? It also seems like bush comes out with a new program every week, like the new “space plan” and i hear he wants broadband for everyone by 2007, yet he does even plan out how to do it. I"m fed up, i’m glad i can vote
Bush — I’m retain my right not to have to explain why.
Preface: Anyway, I haven’t posted in a while. I typically only come out of posting retirement for political stuff and even now, I was hesitant. I’ll blame Cory; he made me do it 
I don’t want to instigate a war of ideologies and I realize that one post probably won’t change anyone’s mind. However, it can lead to healthy dialogue and as someone passionate about politics, I know that it’s important to try to get people engaged. If you want to know more about what I think, you can always IM or email me. This is just a post about why I’m voting for John Kerry.
It’s hard for me to think of even where to begin because having worked on the John Kerry campaign for the last 10 months; it’s so ingrained into me about why John Kerry is the best candidate. It’s beyond ABB (anyone but Bush), it’s about voting for a man who has a vision to deal with the problems of today and prepare us for the future. Concerns about the environment, civil liberties, education, jobs, social security, etc. are not merely “sissy” concerns by those “tree-huggin’ liberals” [When you’re VP of the Bruin Democrats, you hear it all], they are important issues that people of our generation will inherit and issues that Kerry has a plan for. Bush has had more environmental rollbacks than other president in history along with the worst job creation record since Hoover, Ashcroft scares me and I can give you a 20 page paper on why you don’t have to compromise defense for civil liberties, we’re in a major deficit, ask your teacher what he/she thinks about “No Child Left Behind”, the bottom 60% of American only got 14.7% of the last tax cut contrary to what Bush’s claim of the “vast majority of my tax cuts goes to the bottom half of the economic ladder”…the list goes on. Moreover, it may seem like America is on the top of the world, and we are, but we’re also a declining hegemon (meaning, we’re falling from 1). As any political science or history class can tell you, you need your allies to solidify your position. However, with our retreat from Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, ABM treaty, land mine treaty, comprehensive test ban treaty coupled with our war hasn’t been that great in our foreign relations department.
So it’s easy for us liberals to whine, as we’ve heard that we do far too often. We have a solution though; rather we have a man with a solution. He’s worked in the Senate foreign relations committee for over a decade and understands global issues. He also understands domestic issues from his work in the Senate. Having me explain them wouldn’t do them justice so if you really care, you can go to www.johnkerry.com and read up for them yourselves. As for waffling, all I can say is that President George W. Bush at one point, didn’t want the department for Homeland Security. Does this mean that he’s a waffler too? No, it means that as the climate changes, you have to be receptive to new ideas to fix the environment you live in. Have you never changed your mind? It’s easy to go after a man who’s been in the Senate for so long because he’s had to make hard decisions, but let’s also remember there’s a reason why he’s been there for so long and he’s gained a great deal of experience to lead our country from it.
All in all, this is a brief (ok, I know it’s long, but I could go on for MUCH longer) glimpse on why I’ve devoted so much time to Kerry’s campaign and why I’m proudly voting for him in November. Before I devote myself to a cause, I do my research and I highly recommend that everyone, especially those old enough to vote, do the same. If you’ve done your research, and you find that Bush is the better candidate for you, well, I can respect that much more than I can someone merely going off of a few soundbits on TV or blindly following their parents. So if you get something out of this post, I hope that this is it. Voting for John Kerry would be a nice byproduct, but I think the most important thing is to get involved in the political process. It’s a lot of fun, challenging, important and very rewarding.
And of course I had to attach my picture of John Kerry and I last summer at UCLA.
Looking forward to my first Presidential Election! 
I’m going to probably insite a storm of disaprovel, but oh well.
I am not voting in the upcoming presidential election. I feel that none of the canidates have earned my vote. Therefore, I exercise my right to not vote.
What it comes down to is this: Voting for the lesser of two (3?) evils doesn’t accomplish anything. When it comes to the big choices, the ones that really matter, they always make the same choice the other would make. Usally it is the wrong choice. Simply voting for the sake of earning some kind of civic brownie points seems wrong to me.
If none of the canidates are worthy of my vote, no one gets it.
-Andy A.
It’s my first election, and I’ll be votin Kerry, also, same thing that Clark said, I’m retaining my right not to have to explain.
Also guys, lets keep this civil. Thanks. 
I’m interested to know why 9 people have chosen Bush. Kristina made it clear why people like Kerry. Why should we like Bush?
I’m still debating between Kerry, and writing in Edwards.
Kerry, because almost all taxes collected shouldn’t go to defense and leave education and healthcare in the distance, along with other programs need to internally keep this country sound.
I can not with any conscience or moral fiber vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Here’s why:
- He has racked up the largest debt even with adjustion for inflation of any president in the history of this country.
- He has passed a tax cut that disproportionately gave much more money back (proportional to income) than anyone else…
- For all his claims about wanting better business practices post-ENRON, he has yet to come clean about his own questionable and illegal business practices in 1989-90 with his petroleum business, nor his executive cabinet’s deep connections with ENRON itself.
- In a time of two unfinished wars that he led us into, Bush has spent a disproportionate amount of his time on attempting a constitutional amendment that he claims is to “preserve the [christian] sanctity of marriage” - which would be the first amendment to the Constitution which would inhibit the rights of Americans (not to mention that would change the definition of marriage, to that of the Christian right [what happened to freedom of religion?]…)
- Bush is running on a platform of the “war president”, that of a strong leader leading a secure nation. Now, the 9/11 hearings are revealing that he somewhat dropped the ball on security then; he established a redundant Dept. of Homeland Security rather than fix the problems between our domestic FBI and international CIA… and has made a less rather than more secure nation and world in general due to his actions.
Bush can’t run on the economy - sure, we may have bounced out of recession, but very few of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs lost in the recession have been recreated. The Trickle-down economic model doesn’t work. Didn’t work with Reagan heading into the elder Bush, and isn’t working now.
He also will face heavy questioning when he runs on an education platform. You may remember the much-lauded No Child Left Behind act. However, you won’t likely remember that Bush gutted the majority of the funding behind it, and only recently cut the standards back to a level that schools might possibly be able to meet with the aid he left in it.
To tell the truth, I voted for Kuchinich (sp?) in the Democratic primary. However, I am willing and will fall in line behind the Democratic front-runner Kerry. Nader just as four years ago I can not vote for, since his campaign primarily runs on “I’m neither (republican front-runner) nor (democratic front-runner)” every time. Not a compelling argument for me.
Kerry, I believe, has a strong chance and a strong vision for what this country can and will do to maintain its traditions and point us towards a future that is good not only for our citizens but for the rest of the world as well.
Okay, I’ll stop ranting now :). I welcome criticisms of this (privately if you so desire) - as constructive criticism serves to better politically educate those on both sides.
Howard Dean.
“CAN WE DO IT?? HOOOOOOOOOYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!”
Nuff Said.
Nader have good morals, but he will never win just because not enough people will vote for him. So, if i can vote, i would vote for Kerry.
http://www.davidckelly.com/coolstuff/GWB_logo_350.gif
That is, if I could vote…
I don’t even really feel like explaining though, since it’s 1:30 AM here and anything I type will make absolutely no sense at all, and probably will end up having this thread locked.
I’ll vote Bush.
I cannot sit here and say that I like the guy, and I wish that we had better candidates to choose from. But, here are my reasons:
- I believe in a smaller government. I am not happy that Bush has approve the spending of too much money over the last 4 years, but I think that a Republican president would make an effort to keep the government smaller than a Democratic president. I definitely don’t want a Democratic president with a Democratic congress… this combination scares me.
Although I understand we need to have governmental controls, I actually lean more toward Libertarian, believe it or not. Adam Smith and that whole “invisible hand” stuff - I like that.
-
I am against abortion. This is non-debatable with me.
-
I believe in a strong military. Our actions and efforts in Afganistan are stellar. Our presence in Iraq is needed, but I don’t agree with how Bush went about things. However, people need to keep in mind that Iraq broke many UN resolutions and the UN did not have the guts to stand up to him. Also, keep in mind that Iraq is not even in the same ballpark as Vietnam with regard to American lives lost.
Before you criticize me for being a “uncaring conservative fool”, think again. I give much money to charity. I serve on the board of directors at a local rehabilitation organization (not-for-profit). I spend countless hours giving my passion to another not-for-profit organization, FIRST. I often talk to my more left-leaning friends and ask them what they do for their community, and they have no reply.
These are my political thoughts. Do I agree with everything that the Bush administration does? no. Some of the things tick me off too. However, my political thoughts are more in line with Bush’s compared to Kerry’s.
Many of you are smarter than me and will challenge me to a debate about this. I won’t play that game. You won’t change my mind, most likely. Feel free to educate me, but I probably won’t debate these issues. My beliefs are deep, religious, and will probably not change. I am the way I am… maybe it’s the stubborn farmer in me.
While I have these beliefs, I also think that what makes America great is the freedom to have your own beliefs and not be persecuted by others for them. I’ll respect your opinions if you respect mine.
Andy B.
Kerry, even if he isn’t liberal enough for my tastes.
Bush has not made government smaller, what with the introduction of the Department of Homeland ‘Security’. However, he has a horrible record for creating new jobs, in fact, the worst since Hoover. Hoover. Depression Hoover. Stock Market Crashing Hoover.
It’s not even that. The typical ‘New England’ Republican is a socially and economically conservative favoring smaller government. This is a perfect idea, and while I don’t exactly agree, it is… defensible. Bush is one of the Neo-Conservative, or Neo-Cons. These Neo-Cons are strongly religious war hawks who do not believe in cutting down spending- they believe in cutting down taxes for the rich, giving tax breaks to major corporations, and deficiet spending billions and billions of dollars. They also are incredibly Christian, and choose to force these beliefs on government.
I am pro-government, I am pro-America, I am pro-rights and pro-informed decisions, I am for having a man in office that may actually understand the plight of the common man and the horror of living pay check to pay check, I am pro-learning and pro-robotics, and that is why I am voting proudly for Kerry in my first presidential election.
Bush or Kerry or Frickles Mudcat .
Warning: Sites may contain information not suitable for young or sensitive web surfers.
Just an interesting tid-bit I noticed, almost everyone that has posted in this thread has been true to this map.
I just thought it was interesting and am wondering if the same will happen this year.
I am voting for Kerry for a number of reasons, among them:
-
Kerry will restore fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates didn’t really need a multi-million dollar tax cut, but we, as a nation, do need schools, and many older people will need social security and medicare in the future, and we don’t need these huge deficits. Bush touts his “No Child Left Behind” legislation, but guess what? He doesn’t want to pay for it. State and local governments have to pay for it, and will need to raise their, generally “regressive,” sales and property taxes to do so. There go any tax cuts the low- and middle-income people might have seen from the Bush tax cuts.
-
Kerry will help the US re-join the world community, rather than turning the US in a a “rogue state” in the eyes of much of the world as Bush has done. Kerry, being a diplomat rather than a cowboy, will be able to work with the UN, and, yes, Germany and France, to help put Iraq back together. He will also work to restore the trust of the world regarding treaties signed by the US, helping fix the damage of Bush’s having abrogated about 30 years worth of treaties signed by previous presidents.
-
Kerry will restore civil liberties that have been taken away by Ashcroft.
-
Kerry will not use our most sacred national document, the US Constitution, to try to shore up a core constituency, like Bush is doing with his “marriage amendment” for the “Christian Right.”
-
Kerry will restore environmental protections that the Bush administration has been chipping away at since they took office.
-
Kerry will not get us into ill-conceived wars as the obsessed Bush has done. As many will remember, during the campaign, and for his first 8 months in office, Bush was obsessed with “star wars” missile defense. Then, after the events of 9/11 demonstrated the REAL threats we face, he briefly got on track and went after the bin Laden organization in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he soon got sidetracked by his old obsession with Iraq. Now that we’re in Iraq, we’re stuck with putting it back together, but Kerry would be able to do a much better job than Bush at getting help from the rest of the world.
That’s just a start of a case in favor of Kerry, and against Bush. I realize that many of my FIRST team mates and former team mates are fans of Bush. I don’t hold that against them. I suspect, though, that they are as unlikely to convince me to vote for Bush as I am to convince them to vote for Kerry.
Also, as a proud liberal, I have the following beliefs that others may not hold:
-
A certain amount of “redistribution of wealth” is good, as with graduated tax brackets.
-
A certain amount of “socialism” is good, as with public schools, public highways, and even tax-funded health care and subsidized public transit.
-
Discrimination is bad, whether because of color, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. For some things, we need to go beyond “opinions of the majority.”