2004 Election Question

We can choose between 27 kinds of potato chips, but we only have two choices for President of the United States.

 

Well, I'd vote for the Republican if there was one in this race.

I'm getting to the point where I really think that no matter who the President, the best course of action for the country is to have the Congress be in the hands of the other party. Until they get bogged down with scandal-mongering, having opposing parties in positions of power can work to moderate the more radical elements of the other party. And it can help each party focus their agenda since they know that with the other party wielding power, they're not going to have a "blank check" to do what they please.

As for Kerry himself, he doesn't excite me as a candidate. He doesn't make me want to rush out and vote for him, and if there was a Republican in the race, I wouldn't even consider voting for Kerry. But it really is the lesser of two evils for me, as well, and for the first time in my life, the lesser evil is the Democrat, in my opinion.

I'll still be hoping for a Republican Congress and will, once again, vote for my Republican representative and whatever other Republicans are on my ballot. But I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry in that big race.

And four years from now, I'll very likely vote for whoever is running against him.

 

Nader is the only candidate who really represents what I want in a leader and in a politician. And since I'm moving back to Texas, I may very well vote for him.

But I'm not voting *for* anyone. I'm voting *against* Bush. My disdain for his politics far outweighs my concerns with John Kerry.

 

I don't like Kerry.

I despise Bush.

I'll vote for Kerry.

 

Max, you seem like a smart guy. You're not actually going to vote for Bush, are you?

 

I've mentioned before that I used to love Kerry. During the 80's he was my favorite congressman, and someone I wished be president.

He's gone down quite a bit in my eyes. He's been infected by the same bug that much of Democratic party seems to have been affected by, he won't make a political stand that is in anyway too risky. He won't come out in favor of gay marriage, his SUV stuff etc. seems a reversal of the political courage he showed early on in his career.

However there are still some things that I am actually fired up about. His work with first response folks, firefighters etc. is extrordinary. I believe that based on other things he's done and positions he's taken that he will be good at using diplomacy to improve the U.S. position in the world. That's truly amazing considering the debit in this area that GW Bush will be leaving him with.

He seems committed to Health Care, and a more responsible economic plan regarding the debt. I guess that's half fired up for Kerry, and half anybody but Bush.

 

At this point its time to take a reality break.

Both of these guys are obviously scum bags to some extent. I think that much is evident to all of us here. It becomes a question of voting based on what image is going to be broadcasted by the president.

Bush(regardless of the truth of the matter): Strong Military, American Ideals, Family Values, Blue collar lets work attitude

Kerry(regardless of the truth): Patriot, For raising taxes, some socialistic tendencies, Family Man? (My family owns that SUV, not me), Slick Politician

The bottom line is, politics has become a noble lie. Its just a matter of what noble lie we want to tell and broadcast to the world. That said, I believe family values to be the rock of a society and I'm voting down that path.

 

For quite some time, I thought I was going to vote for Kerry as a result of Bush being far worse, to the point of being highly dangerous to the country. I didn't truly like Kerry, as I have not liked a Democratic presidential candidate in over a decade.

That was until I saw Kerry on Meet the Press. He explained his vision for the War on Terror and I now believe that Kerry is the guy that will make an actual dent in terrorism. For those that haven't seen the transcript, Kerry favors funding our intelligence services out the a$$ and using covert operations to take out the terrorists that we find. That is, IMO, the roadmap to making progress in the war on terror. We need to fight these people on their level and we will not win against them using traditional forms of warfare.

In addition, I believe that Kerry will make strides towards balancing the budget, and in that an issue that I used to vote AGAINST Democrats for has now become their strength.

Don't get me wrong, when I turned against Bush (when he lied to start a war), I decided to vote for the Democratic candidate, but having researched Kerry's views, I find him to be a good candidate who will do the things that I want done.

 

Is "family values" a code word for "pro-life?"

EDIT: I am not trying to be inflammatory, I am just wondering what "family values" GWB has that Kerry doesn't. Is "family values" something that the GOP owns and Dems are devoid of???

 

and no gay marriage?

 

I've never fully understood the term "family values" and why it has such a strong association with Republican politics.

I know dozens of bleeding heart liberals who put family first. Isn't that the definition?

 

Most conservative family values, pro-life, pro-religion (not going against orders by a priest not to take communion), pro-not having smut broadcasted to children, against gay marriage, etc. etc. Kerry has some of these values I'll admit, but not as many as Bush in my opinion.

But look once again, its not about the truth of the matter, its about whats being presented to all the youth of America as they sit around the TV screen.

 

So you think it is ok for the children to see the following on TV:

An administration that commits felonies by outing CIA operatives in retaliation for their husband's criticisms.

An administration that exaggerates, misstates, or lies about "intelligence" to start a war.

An administration that attacks anyone who levels even the slightest criticism?


If you are truly worried about what the children are seeing, you need to take a closer look at our current president.

 

See but that's not really whats presented in the mainstream and I don't think its a very accurate portrayal.

And Kerry's administration isn't going to be shady? Ha. Politics are always shady. The only difference is we know about it now.

 

You must be watching something VERY different from me (I watch ABC, CBS, and NBC news). These issues are at the forefront on the political scene and the only children that aren't seeing it are the ones forced to watch only Fox News.

I would prefer SHADY over CRIMINAL. There are FELONS working in the White House and the president has not shown the slightest desire to find out which of HIS EMPLOYEES broke the law by outing Valerie Plame.

 

I think it's very important to differentiate between family values and, as you explained above, conservative family values. I understand those were the values of your family and they helped you develop into a good person. I respect that immensely.

That said, the values of my family -- seek out faith on your own, treat others as you would want to be treated yourself (whether they're black, white, gay, straight, etc.), be aware of as much of the bad stuff in the world as you can, if only so you learn you don't want to be a part of it -- also helped me develop into the person I am today.

Idealogically, they are at odds with your conservative family values, but to me, they represent the values that I'll want to impart to my future family.

I guess my point is, I feel very uncomfortable, and sometimes angry, when I hear conservative politicians championing themselves as they sole defednders of family values. This is both disingenuous and dangerous. No well meaning person is anti-family. And in spite of all their sketchiness and questionable methods, most politicians of all ilk are well meaning people.

 

This is one of my biggest problems w/ W. Our standing in the international scene is at an all time low.

We currently look like dismissive thugs to the world.

If, heavans forbid, we ever need to form a world wide alliance (WWIII), we have severaly undermined the trust of the rest of the world.

Maybe thats being dramatic, but the world is growing smaller as communications increase. International standing is as important as ever. And we've systematically pissed off some of our strongest allies.

 

The Church should stay away from forcing political views through denial of communion. This makes me sick and ashamed to be a Catholic (what is left of me that is).