I feel that my vote can have more of an affect by voting for a third party candidate than it can by voting for Bush. If enough people in landslide states voted the way I will, then 3rd party candidates would actually get some recognition and we could eliminate the 2 party monopoly on political power in America, and I would consider that a good thing. I guess it just doesn't matter to me if Bush looses California by 1,293,774 votes or 1,293,775. If it looks like California will be in play, then I will vote for Bush, but if he has no chance of taking California, then I will cast a vote for a third party candidate, in hopes of helping to change the American political landscape, instead of futilely railing against the overwhelming liberalness of my state. I don't see how I am squandering my vote, anymore than anyone else is squandering theirs. I will be voting, and I will be voting for either my first or second choice. It is just a matter of deciding where my vote will do more good. You, of course, are welcome to your opinion though.
I wonder what would happen if a "pre-eminent" statesman like John McCain or Zell Miller ran under the banner of a third party? Would that attract enough independents and revive enough apathetics to make a winning difference? If they distanced themselves from PACs would that make a convincing appeal? ------------------------------------ I see myself voting for Bush at this juncture. I'm unmoved by the hyperbolic attacks on his character and intellect. I do think he is a bit of a creation. I didn't have the "pleasure" to know him as the governor of Texas since I don't live there. It's obvious that not everything has gone briskly but few presidents have had the challenges that Bush has had almost from the get-go. Things are rocky but nowhere near disastrous. Our strongest so-called allies abandoned us because their pockets were being lined by Saddam. Do we miss them? Yes. Do we reconsider our choice? No. Even Kerry agrees. Four more years!
Have any of you guys looked at the situation and thought maybe, just maybe the perpetual state of slight fear a lot of Americans, dare I say most Americans, feel is not a ploy by the GOP to win an election? It’s an easy mechanism to take the low road and label me a simpleton pawn buying into the propaganda being orchestrated by Dubya. I could charge that a lot of you guys have simply bought into the propaganda of the left. But I don’t. I think you guys believe what you believe because you have weighed what has been presented to you and made an intelligent choice, for you. As soon as an American gets a sense of the political world he has a leaning. He has a tendency one way or the other that causes him to alter, however slightly, his ‘take’ on whatever news is presented to him. Admittedly this perception can change but one way or the other the lean is there. It’s easy to remember this when you label someone else for buying into propaganda but difficult to see it in yourself. You are willing to charge that I have bought into a false sense of insecurity. Are willing to acknowledge that maybe and I mean juuuust maybe you are wrong about the threat? Maybe, just maybe the fear is justified. I am not talking about walking around afraid for my life. I am talking about a fear of the challenge to our way of life. I am finally willing to accept that I could be wrong. Are you?
Bush SAID that he was a compassionate conservative... Bush SAID that he would Leave No Child Behind... Bush SAID that he would NEVER engage in nation building... Bush SAID that "By far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to the bottom"... Bush has said a LOT of things that have turned out to be mistakes, exaggerations, or just plain false. I think that Kerry is FAR more trustworthy than Bush. Bush says one thing and then kowtows to his big campaign contributors. Will Kerry do the same thing? Perhaps, but I KNOW Bush will, so I will give Kerry the chance to see what he will do. If he does the same thing, I will be back to voting Republican in '08.
Chance....this thread would have started off a whole lot better if you would have listed your reasons for voting for GWB in haiku form!!!!! Just a suggestion.......
For the historical accuracy... Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs." The "war" was ratcheted up dramatically in the '80s under Reagan, especially against cocaine in response to Len Bias' death. Things have only gotten worse since, with NO president showing any sign of letting up. One of the reasons that I didn't support Clinton in '96 was that the drug war got significantly worse under his presidency.
I know but he's the most independent Democrat that I could come up with--- and you guys criticize the Republicans for being rigid! Got a more prominent nomination?
Good topic Chance. While I don't agree with your political views, I respect the reasons you have for voting that way. I have a variety of reasons why I will vote for Kerry, but the main reason is a rather personal one and one that impacts my wife and I quite a bit. As you all know, Bush has banned the use of stem cells for any new research because of his moral beliefs on the subject. Something that is closely related to that and impacts us, is that he is also against many infertility treatments that could or do help many couples have a child that otherwise could not. Specifically, he is against a certain gentic test on embryos that my wife and I require to have any real shot at having a child together. At this point in my life, that is the most important issue to us, which makes our vote for Kerry a no brainer.
Well, I guess I will jump in with yet another opine-onion.... I will be voting for John Kerry in November. I will not be voting for him because I think he is a savior nor because I think he will be the greatest President in history. I will be voting for John Kerry because I believe the George W. Bush administration is the most corrupt, lying and arrogant administration this country has seen since the Nixon administration, and, judging by his administration's actions since 9/11, I do not believe this country would be able to survive another four years of George W. Bush.
Politicians say what they have to, to get elected. Shrub has time after time failed on many of his campaign promises. He has had his chance and guess what?? He f***ing sucks at being a leader. Those of you who gave Clinton s**t for getting a hummer in the White House are ready to back this idiot in the White House so he can wage a war that he has no idea how to win. Let's see we have had two bushes in the WH and in that time we have had two wars,two crappy economies and two leaders out of touch with america in general. If you want to vote because of your emotions,that's fine. the fact that you're voting is the best way of supporting this country,regardless of party. I just hope people remember that when we vote someone in office, it's to do a job. So my main criteria is to look at their record and especially their results. And our current president fails on both counts.
Blaming the economy on Bush is irresponsible. It has been stimulated and is responding. The eceonmy went bad because we are a ridiculously selfish country that is a slave to the $$$ and people were worried about bucks after 9/11.
Hey Chance - good thread, I hope it doesn't go bad. It's nice hearing people's real beliefs behind their votes. Excellent haiku. Awesome. Your above quote - I don't think bashing the American public is fair. Remember how much the markets dropped after 9/11. Remember the amount of money lost due to various corporate scandals. Remember that Americans have a terrible average savings rate. And you're blaming them for not spending money? Yes, we're slaves to the $, but isn't that good for America? (See various Bush administration speeches after 9/11, as well as Rudy Giuliani then or on last week's "This Week"). I'll add my reason: If I imagine a great President, does GW Bush fit the picture? No. Why? Because I feel he has done many things contrary to the ideals of our country - civil rights, preemptive warfare, beholden to big business, attacking the opposing party and rarely reaching out, squashing not only civil but scientific discourse. Will Kerry be any better? I don't know. But I have the past four years to know for sure that the direction the country is going now is not the direction I want to continue going. A win for Bush is seeming vindication for the neo-con philosophy and the conservative Right. If Kerry sucks, he'll be gone in four years, and we'll have moved back towards the Center. Remember to research and vote for your Congressional reps. They have power.
Chance, not sure about others, but I have seen both sides. I've come out to vote for the first time in years to get this incumbent out of office. The threat IS real. Yes, we know that. But THIS administration's view (Bush the face; nice guy "family values guy" and his neo-con cronies; non-religious, secular, visionaries) on how the world works, is in la-la land. Sure, it looks good on some strategic geopolitical map. But their actions are not wise....As George H.W. would say, "It wouldn't be prudent." It's like hitting your head against a brick wall; sure, they are trying, sure, they are working hard at their goal, sure, they are well meaning. But if they will get nowhere, what does it matter? Their methods and understand of the world is narrow-minded. And they are creating more terrorism than they are getting rid of. I mean, this so called "war on terrorism" and phrases like "the elusive enemy" are words that YOU have bought into. We're not talking about some "evil boggy man" that has a invisible cloaking device...NO, we are talking about a culture war on a religion (200 million of them) and tying to break down an economics barrier. They may not have intended it to be this way. But that's what has come out of it; heeding against the advice of many before the war. This war will be perpetual because THIS is the only way THIS administration KNOWS how to deal with it. And it's a pointless method, IMO. There might be some politics going on as well. Which is, this administration may want to be seen as "doing something." And, they feel that being active in the war keeps the aleart high and that means that complacency will not set it. Well, that's all well and good. But it only addresses the symptons of the war and terrorism, not the root causes: the minds of those who wish to attack us (which bombs and bullets will have little, if no effect on). This "war on terror" will be a miserable failure -- not because of their goals or intentions -- but because of the WAY they implemented it. They were not prudent; we lost our chance right after 911 when the world was on our side. If you can't see that Kerry will have more credibility on many fronts of this war, opposite of Bush, then you are blind. That alone shouldn't be ignored. Bush and his administratioin is NOT trusted around the world. Other counties will not "make deals" with them. Not because they represent America. It's because of who they are. This administration can't change its spots.
