I will pick a little later so as not to possibly be responsible for starting a trend. ;)

Can I say who I'd *like* to vote for?

Ok, I will say it-Kerry because he is "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"




Cat

I went with other because I won't be sure until I enter the voting booth.  I am leaning heavily towards Bush, but who knows what will happen between now and November.

Kerry to get rid of Bush.

The differences between them are only incremental, but not insignificant.  The world cannot afford Bush and his clatch of sick neo-con goons for another four years.  Heck, we certainly couldn't afford them for the previous four.

I do not have the all-abiding hatred of Bush that many do, though I certainly disagree with many things this administration has done.  However, I will not hesitate to say that I believe that also made good steps in office.

With this in mind, I can not in good conscience vote for Kerry.  There are no reasons to vote for the guy; only reasons to vote against Bush.  That's a truly sh**ty reason to elect someone.  I'm not going to help put a non-leader in office, sorry.  He's not an option.

Or, hey, maybe Kerry will develop some ideas between now and November.  Who knows?

This election year is going to have the most negative-voting spike in memory.

I'm voting for Bush because I think to vote for Kerry is a step backwards, but then again, when Kerry screws everything up since he has no leadership skills whatsoever, we could get another Republican (hopefully a "RINO" such as McCain to steer it towards the middle of the road) to fix the mess. 

I have to disagree with those who say there is no reason to vote FOR Kerry, as opposed to AGAINST Bush.  I will list a few:

1 Reproductive rights:  While personally norally opposed to abortion, Kerry recognizes that it is bad public  policy to impose personal morality on the positions taken by others, that this is a highly personal decision between a woman, her conscious, her doctor, and her spiritual leader, not a matter of public policy.  Unlike our current "president" who is rumored to have paid for abortions for some of the Texas bimbos he was boinking during his "wild" days.

2 Labor rights:  While perhaps not the strongest possible advocate for labor rights, Kerry has certainly not been an enemy of the right of workers to form unions to collectively negotiate their terms and conditions of employment.  He could be stronger here, but he is certainly better than the current anti-union administration.

3 Foreign policy:  Kerry is much more the internationalist that the currant admin.  which has squandered the good will of the world  (following 9/11) through its "go it alone" notions of the U.S. Imperium.  Kerry will do what is possible to reestablish the moral leadership of the U.S. through inclusion and cooperation rather than continuing to alianate governments and peoples aound the world through arrogance and preemption.

4: Economic policy:  Kerry will try to redress to complete and total favoritism of this admin. (to the point of toddyism) to "the rich and well born" to quote Hamilton, and to corporate America (see 2 above).  He has pledged to redress fairness to the tax code so that the very rich pay a bit more like their fair share of taxes and so relieve the burden on the working and middle class.

5: Social policy:  Kerry has pledged to stop the crazy neocon drive to "privatize" (read ruin) Social Security and thus put the only retirement benefit of millions in jeapordy.  He has pledged to continue working to improve civil rights.  He has pledge to support public education (as opposed to "No Child Left Untested"), and to expand opportunities for working and middle class kids to pay for college educations.  

6: Health care policy:  Kerry has pledged to seek remedies to the health care crisis so many people face, vis, no insurance, unresponsive insurance, high perscription drug prices (seniors eating pet food so they can buy their meds), and the class and race based differntial access to health care (paranthetically let me add that we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, and that Cuba's rate is LOWER than ours, even after decades of blockaid).

Far from being a choice between Teedle dumb and tweedle dumber, the choice is between a reactionary, totally corporate, totall corrupt incumbant admisistration and one that will, at least in part, redress the balance in favor of working and middle class people.

Kerry is far from MY perfect candidate, but he is head and shoulders above the other guy.

Let's vote Kerry, the man who will take both sides to every issue ;) 8)

In the early seventies I spent some time in Kennebunk and at that time became a bush watcher after hearing stories about the family from the locals. That is 30 plus years ago and there is no way in hell that I would ever want to vote for a bush in any way shape or form, and anyone who gets up in the morning to go to work to support their family should take a closer look at what they represent.  They are the kind of people who haven't been happy since the day they were told that it is no longer legal to slap the servants.  Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does.

Let's vote Kerry, the man who will take both sides to every issue ;) 8)


Kerry HAS changed his mind about previous decisions.  I always thought that intelligence allows for a change, and its not "every issue".  He changed his mind inre votes on Iraq, after discovering that, to be generous, the evidance presented to Congress was "exagurated" (immediate threat?  WMDs?)  I would much prefer that to someone like Bush who can't admit to a mistake, and would prefer to lie or obfuscate his way out of an embarassing situation (I haven't taken illeagal drugs after 1974,  I still belive Saddam had WMD and was connected to Al Quida, and I still believe pigs can fly).

Bush, and even though I am a no-doubt partisan I could change my vote (to Nader NOT Kerry.)

Can I say who I'd *like* to vote for?


Absolutely! :)

I didn't write it, but this song parody pretty much covers how I feel about the two clowns who have a chance to win.  I'll vote Libertarian as usual (can't recall the guy's name).

I didn't write it, but this song parody pretty much covers how I feel about the two clowns who have a chance to win.  I'll vote Libertarian as usual (can't recall the guy's name).


Libertarian is good.  They usually endorse the republican candidate.  Democrats are NOT pro-choice (guns anyone?)

I'm voting for Kerry.

I chose Kerry because he can't do any worse. 

How do you know that!?

How do you know that!?

Kerry could do worse...
but he'd have to really, really try!
;D
If Kerry gets in he'll have a great advantage.  Bush has set such a low bar for success!  In fact, Kerry will be able to ride on correcting Bush's failures before worrying about successes of his own.  Kerry has to get in first.  The will of the people may once agan be subverted.

This election year is going to have the most negative-voting spike in memory.

I'm voting for Bush because I think to vote for Kerry is a step backwards, but then again, when Kerry screws everything up since he has no leadership skills whatsoever
And Bush does ???
C'mon!  Bush has gotten nowhere on his own merit.  He's all family name and corporate money.  He is a sock puppet for the military industrial complex.  When he has to rely on his own mettle, even on the simple task of answering questions from the press, he nosedives INSTANTLY!

And, no, arrogance is NOT a leadership skill.

My Name is Kenny Wrote:
Or, hey, maybe Kerry will develop some ideas between now and November.  Who knows?
Kerry does need to clarify his platform.  I hope with the influence of Edwards, it will be one of economic populism.  I don't have a problem with Kerry running a negative campaign against Bush.  Bush is the problem.  When you've been stabbed, your first priorit SHOULD be to get the knife out of your back.

Don Carlos wrote:
2 Labor rights:  While perhaps not the strongest possible advocate for labor rights, Kerry has certainly not been an enemy of the right of workers to form unions to collectively negotiate their terms and conditions of employment.  He could be stronger here, but he is certainly better than the current anti-union administration.
Yes indeed. As I just heard liberal writer Thomas Frank say, "If we don't have a labor movement, we don't have a Left."

DanootaAndMe wrote
In the early seventies I spent some time in Kennebunk and at that time became a bush watcher after hearing stories about the family from the locals. That is 30 plus years ago and there is no way in hell that I would ever want to vote for a bush in any way shape or form, and anyone who gets up in the morning to go to work to support their family should take a closer look at what they represent.  They are the kind of people who haven't been happy since the day they were told that it is no longer legal to slap the servants.  Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does.
I wouldn't doubt it.  The way they've managed to pull off this populist snow job boggles the mind.  I can't imagine Dubya is self-deluding enough to think he's really just a good ole boy, but maybe he really does believe his own propaganda.

GWBush wroteBush, and even though I am a no-doubt partisan I could change my vote (to Nader NOT Kerry.)
Under what circumstances woudl you vote for Nader?
??? ??? ???

I've decided to vote for Kerry.

Had he picked Edwards before I posted this poll, I would have added the option in relation to this; because in my opinion, Kerry secured himself a nice percentage of "I’m not sure" voters just by having Edwards by his side.

OK Folks!! I have added the new option and have also made it possible for some of you to change your vote if you should so desire. :)

Same request as on the other poll - can you set it so we who can't vote can see the results, please?

Same request as on the other poll - can you set it so we who can't vote can see the results, please?


Absolutely! :) Sorry about that.

Libertarian is good.  They usually endorse the republican candidate.  Democrats are NOT pro-choice (guns anyone?)


Kerry, who spent a bit of time skeet shooting a few days ago, is pro-choice.  Want to own a gun?  Your choice.  He may not be the NRA's poster child because, as I recall, he advocates some limits on who can own a gun and what kind of guns should be available.  Personally, I have always wanted a 50 cal machine gun and a 175 mm cannon, like on tanks.  But then, the terrorists (especially the homeless ones, whould bid the price up beyond my means.

How do you know that!?


I agree, he can do a lot worse.

Does anybody here remember Jimmy Carter?  We all know how Iran turned out.

Or Lyndon Johnson.  He took this little bush insurgency started by Eisenhauer, and continued by Kennedy, and pushed it to a full-blown war known as Vietnam.

I have NEVER voted just because I did not like the opponent.  That is not a valid reason to ever vote for somebody.  That only gives you a candidate (and later Ellected Official) that is no use at all.

SOme of the things I read here are interesting, but you have to realize something:  The President has very little REAL power!

Suppose Bush wanted to outlaw abortion tomorrow.  Can he do it?  Hell no.  He has to work through Congress.  All he can do it propose legislation, or approve/veto it after it passes.  And very rarely does a President veto things.

Even if Bush was dedicated to making Abortion illegal, he first would have to get the Majority in Congress to pass a bill.  Do you see that happening?  I know that I don't.  Congress would tell him to go pound sand.

Even if Congress passed it, and he signed it into law, do you think the Supreme Court would let it stand?  No, they would step in and tell BOTH Congress and the President to go pound sand.  This is called "Checks And Ballances", and is part of every CIvics 101 class.  In fact, the President can do almost NOTHING without Congress approving it. 

If the war was so unpopular, then Congress has the power to step in and bring the troops home.  And unlike Vietnam with a conscript military, we now have a 100% volunteer force serving.  Why not ask THEM what they want.

I remember when I was in during the 1990 war.  Most of us were upset, because we all KNEW we would have to go back eventually and finish the job.  I am all for peace, and believe in many cases, diplomacy can work.  Look at Lybia and how they have changed in the last 20 years.  But Saddam proved he would never change his ways.

Mostly, the President leads the nation in Diplomacy and National Priorities.  And myself, right now I feel our priorities are National Defense.  And with that in mind, I am voting for the cnadidate that seems most likely to perform that task the best, President Bush.

SOme of the things I read here are interesting, but you have to realize something:  The President has very little REAL power!

Suppose Bush wanted to outlaw abortion tomorrow.  Can he do it?  Hell no.  He has to work through Congress.  All he can do it propose legislation, or approve/veto it after it passes.  And very rarely does a President veto things.

Even if Bush was dedicated to making Abortion illegal, he first would have to get the Majority in Congress to pass a bill.  Do you see that happening?  I know that I don't.  Congress would tell him to go pound sand.

Even if Congress passed it, and he signed it into law, do you think the Supreme Court would let it stand?  No, they would step in and tell BOTH Congress and the President to go pound sand.  This is called "Checks And Ballances", and is part of every CIvics 101 class.  In fact, the President can do almost NOTHING without Congress approving it. 



That is true, I would rather have Kerry in office with a republican controlled house and senate then Bush with a democrat controlled house and senate.

--WHAT A GREAT TIME TO BE A REPUBLICAN!!!  The president is a republican and the congress and the senate are republican controlled. 8)

That is true, I would rather have Kerry in office with a republican controlled house and senate then Bush with a democrat controlled house and senate.

--WHAT A GREAT TIME TO BE A REPUBLICAN!!!  The president is a republican and the congress and the senate are republican controlled. 8)


Personally, while I like the idea of Republicans controlling all three, I think it is best if the Democrats control at least one of them.

This to me goes back to "Checks And Ballances".  Having the opposition party in control of at least 1 of the 3 keeps one party from passing to much legislation.

But on the other side, for many years now, Republicans have controlled both House and Senate.  If the "Conservative Movement" was so unpopular, then why is it still that way?

And after so long in control, Abortion is still legal.  Guns are not available at the corner liquor store.  People are nor lying dead in the street from starvation and homelessness (other then the disfunctional people who would be there reguardless of party in control).  The press is still free, blacks still have the vote, and so do women.

Even in California, one of the most Liberal states in the nation, they have a Republican Governor.  And California is a great example of my idea there.

California has a notoriously Democrat state legislature.  Under Davis, they passed a lot of crap that almost ruined the state.  With one party controlling legislature and the other the Executive office, they tend to counter each other out, reaching a good middle ground.

But to reach this state, it also can mean gridlock.  The approval of Judges STILL going on almost 4 years into the Presidency is a good example of this. 

Absolutely! :) Sorry about that.

Thanks, HS :-)

Mostly, the President leads the nation in Diplomacy and National Priorities.  And myself, right now I feel our priorities are National Defense.  And with that in mind, I am voting for the cnadidate that seems most likely to perform that task the best, President Bush.

"National defense" has been the clarion call of Big Business Republicans since Reagan.  All it means is more untold billions lost in the Pentagon black hole, and more Big Government subisidies for defense contractors to build shoddy weapons systems we don't need and will never work.

Our national national infrastructure is collapsing, and that's the worst national defense of all.

It looks like Kerry's in the lead here. Anyone else care to vote?

"National defense" has been the clarion call of Big Business Republicans since Reagan.  All it means is more untold billions lost in the Pentagon black hole, and more Big Government subisidies for defense contractors to build shoddy weapons systems we don't need and will never work.

Our national national infrastructure is collapsing, and that's the worst national defense of all.


OK, what is your solution then, throw the money into the "black hole" of welfare?

No matter what you think, millions of people are employed through the military, both directly and indirectly.  Those are hard jobs, with people making money and paying taxes.  I would rather see the money spent to giving people jobs, then to see it thrown to yet another entitlement.

I am amazed that during our current problems and the state of international affairs, you are encouraging us to REDUCE our defense spending.  Fine, you think it is a crime and a rip-off.  What is your solution?  It is very VERY easy to complain about something, but oh so much harder to give a viable solution.

BTW: almost no companies gain much directly from defense contracts.  Boeing makes much more from making airliners then from making military jets.  The long-term payoff to most of those contracts is the R&D which is then used in future generations of civilian applications.  Night vision, cell phones, computers, GPS, satellites, Internet, these are ALL creations of the "Corrupt Military-Industrial Complex" you keep going on about.  Let's not forget that the Internet started as DARPANET, a construct of that "military complex".  And can you even guess how many jobs are created by the Internet?  Much more then are supported by welfare, I am sure.

OK, take this debate outside the thread you two. ::)

Bush

Ok, I will say it-Kerry because he is "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
Cat


Ditto!  :D

I agree, he can do a lot worse.

Does anybody here remember Jimmy Carter?  We all know how Iran turned out.

Or Lyndon Johnson.  He took this little bush insurgency started by Eisenhauer, and continued by Kennedy, and pushed it to a full-blown war known as Vietnam.

SOme of the things I read here are interesting, but you have to realize something:  The President has very little REAL power!


If the war was so unpopular, then Congress has the power to step in and bring the troops home.  And unlike Vietnam with a conscript military, we now have a 100% volunteer force serving.  Why not ask THEM what they want.

Mostly, the President leads the nation in Diplomacy and National Priorities.  And myself, right now I feel our priorities are National Defense.  And with that in mind, I am voting for the cnadidate that seems most likely to perform that task the best, President Bush.


I have delited portions for brevity.

Jimmy Carter, as I recall ordered a military rescue of the hostages in Iran, but the military let him down (there are some intersting associations here between the officers in charge and the later Iran/Contra scandal, by the way).  And there is also a substantial, and fairly conclusive body of evidance to the effect that the Reagan/Bush (I) team were negotiating with  Iran to PREVENT the release of the hostages before the election (the feared "October surprise").  The evidance suggests that the weopons Reagan sold the Iranis was the quid pro quo for holding the hostages.  Conclusion:  Jimmy Carter did finally attempt a military solution, but where was our muscle?  And his efforts were undermined by ideological zealots for pruely partisan (and unpatriotic) purposes.

Lyndon Johnson did, in fact lie to deepen our engagement in Vietnam, which Eisenhower could have avoided by honoring the UN sponsored unification plebicite, a real tragedy for both us and Vietnam.  However, here again there were shenanigans going on.  While ostensibly working for Johnson, Henry Kissinger was secretly meeting with both the Nixon campaign AND the South Vietnamese.  The treaty that got us out of Vietnam was essentially the same as the one Johnson had negotiated and was turned down by the South Vietnamese before the 1968 election.  Half the manes on the wall are post 1968 names - more the 25,000 US troops died so that Tricky Dicky could be pres. and Henry the K Sec. of State.

But all this is well documented anchient history.

The important issue that I wish to address is presidential power.  Your description of the legislative process is certainly correct.  Congress passes laws which the Pres can either sign or veto, and the Supreme Court may agree to hear a case challenging them (it doesn't HAVE to, in fact it refuses to consider about 80% of the appeals brough before it).  But the pres can, and most have, "changed the rules" regarding the enforcement of laws.  For example, Congress passed the laws establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and executive branch agency.  They write the regulations under which they will inforce the intent of the law.  The Bush administration has sanctioned a major rewrite of those regulations which give polloters (in this instance) a great deal more "wiggle room" that was previously the case, like extending the grandfathering in of power plants that produce acid rain.  The pres also writes the budget that finances compliance inforcement of the regs that exist, and this admin has underfunded much of that compliance inforcements, especially for the Occupational Safty and Health Agency, but others as well.  You also assert that "Congress has the power to bring the troops home".  How?  As Commander in Chief the pres can order the troops anywhere in the world with the stroke of a pen (for a limited time - 90  days if memory serves) without Congressional approval.  In this case, having given Georgie the green light, they might be able to recind it, or cut the military budget, but the power of Congress in this regard is also limited.

My point is that the President has tremendous power to set the national agenda, both domestic and foreign, without recourse to Congress.

I do respect and acknowledge the validity of your views on current national priorities.  I would ask you, though, if "national defense" should be our #1 priority, why are we in Iraq, which had no WMD's, was not supporting Al Quida, and was not involved in 9/11?  And why does public enemy # 1, Osama, still remain at large?

I didn't realize John Maynard Keynes was ever made a lord.. but yes, he was a Brit; and yes, he did rate civil projects over military ones in terms of getting more bang for your buck, so to speak.

I didn't realize John Maynard Keynes was ever made a lord.. but yes, he was a Brit; and yes, he did rate civil projects over military ones in terms of getting more bang for your buck, so to speak.


I may be mistaken about his, is it, knighthood?  I don't really get all that heraldry stuff, but his economic message was clear, and largely ignored.

OK, what is your solution then, throw the money into the "black hole" of welfare?

No matter what you think, millions of people are employed through the military, both directly and indirectly.  Those are hard jobs, with people making money and paying taxes.  I would rather see the money spent to giving people jobs, then to see it thrown to yet another entitlement.

I am amazed that during our current problems and the state of international affairs, you are encouraging us to REDUCE our defense spending.  Fine, you think it is a crime and a rip-off.  What is your solution?  It is very VERY easy to complain about something, but oh so much harder to give a viable solution.

BTW: almost no companies gain much directly from defense contracts.  Boeing makes much more from making airliners then from making military jets.  The long-term payoff to most of those contracts is the R&D which is then used in future generations of civilian applications.  Night vision, cell phones, computers, GPS, satellites, Internet, these are ALL creations of the "Corrupt Military-Industrial Complex" you keep going on about.  Let's not forget that the Internet started as DARPANET, a construct of that "military complex".  And can you even guess how many jobs are created by the Internet?  Much more then are supported by welfare, I am sure.

I'm saying defense spending should be for real national defense, not for corrupt contractors to bilk Uncle Sam for weapons systems we don't need and munitions that will never work.
Defense is the ONLY dept. Republicans ceaselessly declare we must throw ever more money at.  Millstar "Star Wars" defense shields and B1 bombers have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The Pentagon wastes vasts sums of our national treasure.  We need to put our money to work more efficiently for us.  You can spend a heck of a lot less, and get a heck of a lot more bang for your buck.  That's not the goal of the military-industrial complex, however.  Its goal is to enrich a few private hands with the majority of tax payer dollars.

Welfare?  We wouldn't need welfare if we commited to managing our economy for the benefit of the many instead of the few. 

Forgive me, I've had a few cocktails this evening, and I'm gonna have a few more!

I'm saying defense spending should be for real national defense, not for corrupt contractors to bilk Uncle Sam for weapons systems we don't need and munitions that will never work.
Defense is the ONLY dept. Republicans ceaselessly declare we must throw ever more money at.  Millstar "Star Wars" defense shields and B1 bombers have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The Pentagon wastes vasts sums of our national treasure.  We need to put our money to work more efficiently for us.  You can spend a heck of a lot less, and get a heck of a lot more bang for your buck.  That's not the goal of the military-industrial complex, however.  Its goal is to enrich a few private hands with the majority of tax payer dollars.

Welfare?  We wouldn't need welfare if we commited to managing our economy for the benefit of the many instead of the few. 

Forgive me, I've had a few cocktails this evening, and I'm gonna have a few more!


Wow that sounds just like Nader i'm surprised you are not voting for him.  But I guess its a vote for Bush or some other liberal logic thing....

Wow that sounds just like Nader i'm surprised you are not voting for him.  But I guess its a vote for Bush or some other liberal logic thing....

The cocktails part doesn't sound much like Nader, unless you're talking about carrot juice.  Otherwise, yer darn right it sounds like Nader, I voted for him twice.  It's getting harder for me to vote for Kerry.  He just announced he's behind all the Israeli aggression, especially the the dirty rotten "security fence" (ie. international law-violating land grab and blow against geographical continuity for Palestinians).  That one was hard to swallow, but I understand any national candidate has to kiss major Israeli butt or be attacked as pro-terrorist and anti-semite (what a bunch of cr*pola!)
If Kerry comes up with any more right-wing suck-up statements, my vote may go to Nader.  I'm not voting for the Greens 'coz I think David Cobb's a wuss.  Anyway, it doesn't matter.  I'm registered in Kerry's homestate, the People's Republic of Massachusetts.  The K-man's gonna win here anyway!

The cocktails part doesn't sound much like Nader, unless you're talking about carrot juice.  Otherwise, yer darn right it sounds like Nader, I voted for him twice.  It's getting harder for me to vote for Kerry.  He just announced he's behind all the Israeli aggression, especially the the dirty rotten "security fence" (ie. international law-violating land grab and blow against geographical continuity for Palestinians).  That one was hard to swallow, but I understand any national candidate has to kiss major Israeli butt or be attacked as pro-terrorist and anti-semite (what a bunch of cr*pola!)
If Kerry comes up with any more right-wing suck-up statements, my vote may go to Nader.  I'm not voting for the Greens 'coz I think David Cobb's a wuss.  Anyway, it doesn't matter.  I'm registered in Kerry's homestate, the People's Republic of Massachusetts.  The K-man's gonna win here anyway!


I just heard (was it yesterday or this morning - was sailing, and that distorts time) that the International Court of Justice ruled the "wall" illegal and that Sharon has rejected their finding.  This could give Kerry the ammunition to soften his support.  But you're right, can't sacrifice that Jewish vote lightly.

I just heard (was it yesterday or this morning - was sailing, and that distorts time) that the International Court of Justice ruled the "wall" illegal and that Sharon has rejected their finding.  This could give Kerry the ammunition to soften his support.  But you're right, can't sacrifice that Jewish vote lightly.

Yeah, I saw that too, but the ICJ ruling is non-binding, and even it was, so what?  The U.S. and Israel violate international law as a matter of course, and dare the rest of the world to DO something about it!

Yeah, I saw that too, but the ICJ ruling is non-binding, and even it was, so what?  The U.S. and Israel violate international law as a matter of course, and dare the rest of the world to DO something about it!


Yes, of course they do, no question.  My point was a political one. Given the ICJ ruling, if I were Kerry, I would find a way to distance myself from Sharom, while still supporting Isreal, in , maybe, a more conciliatory postue.  The possibilities, read and symbolic could be monumental.  Or is the fact that I have had some rum making me delusional?