Bush? no. Kerry? no. ..then who?

I see this so often... people don't know what party or who to vote for because they don't know what the parties actually stand for, and political campaigning is more of a circus than anything else -- you don't get the facts out of them; you just get to see finely-coreographed song and dance routines.

Take the world's smallest political quiz.

It'll tell you exactly where you are on the extended political map in about 3 minutes.

Did I say with -was- in touch with the little guy? No, he seems to be in touch. On the other hand, I don't believe Bush has any feelings whatsoever about the little guy.

That would be in the "Bush scares the hell out of me" section, while Kerry "only scares me a little" section.

So to answer Ummm yes, of -course- I know it's an act, but his act is better than Bush's. OK?

I'm not so sure about that. remember as much as liberals claim to talk for the little man, its the rural south, and rural areas of the North that mostly vote republican. In Maine our strongest republican counties are the most rural and poorest. So who really resonates better with the little man?

JV

No, Kerry's wife's was only married to a Heinz. Her family is Portuguese, and pretty well known for extorting money from Jewish refugees fleeing from Europe before and during World War 2 and then for transporting the Nazis and all the loot they stole to South America.


I meant her family as in the family that she was a part of for ohh most of her life....The Heinz family has been around Pittsburgh about as long as Prosser Mellon's family and she was a Heinz for a good bit of her life so I didn't feel the need to call her by her maiden name...Of course I suppose she was left in the cold by the Heinz family then and Kerry is not privy to any of her loot? But thank you for clarifying I will be sure to mark the exact lineage before posting a name from now on.

No, Kerry's wife's was only married to a Heinz. Her family is Portuguese, and pretty well known for extorting money from Jewish refugees fleeing from Europe before and during World War 2 and then for transporting the Nazis and all the loot they stole to South America.


I meant her family as in the family that she was a part of for ohh most of her life....The Heinz family has been around Pittsburgh about as long as Prosser Mellon's family and she was a Heinz for a good bit of her life so I didn't feel the need to call her by her maiden name...Of course I suppose she was left in the cold by the Heinz family then and Kerry is not privy to any of her loot? But thank you for clarifying I will be sure to mark the exact lineage before posting a name from now on.

Elections are always depressing for me. I viewed the last election as choice between puncturing my left lung or my right one.

This time around, not much better. Still, I am going to vote for Kerry. Not because I think he is better than Bush nor just to get Bush out of office but ...

The way I see it Bush will continue to create a mess and wreak havoc. His infrastructure is in place and it will be business as usual. No obstacles. In fact, his second term might embolden him further.

Kerry will also most likely flub things up BUT he will be under pressure at first to learn his way around the White House, establish relations of his own with other countries and address the people that elected him. This will take time .. which will leave him less time to screw things up.

It's all about minimizing damage

With Regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Don't um, well, go to any trouble to be polite, since I won't. If I have a distasteful view of politics it must be because I am involved with politicians and elections. I was an alternate delegate to two national conventions and I've been active in politics since before I could vote.

And don't think that I was criticizing gay marrige, by any means; that would be like an anti-semitic Jew. Just because I wouldn't ever go that route myself doesn't mean I would deny anyone else their own shot at the misery of matrimony.
If an issue so insigificant (in the large scheme of things) as gay marriage is the factor that determines the election, a candidate has an obligation to avoid it like the plague. Voters in oh say Indiana are going to be talking about the election next October and it's going to run like this:

"I don't know about that Kerry, with him being from Massachusetts and all. Did you see them queers getting married on TV? UGH! He looks FRENCH, TOO! I'm voting for Bush!"

If you believe that most people think things over rationally before they decide who to vote for, I have to tell you that they do not. They vote for a candidate because they like his hair, or because they like the way his wife dresses or because those nice clean-cut campaign volunteers of his delivered the meals on wheels that week that Betty Jo got her goiter removed.

I will vote for whoever it takes to get Bush and his shitty cohorts out of the White House. I will NOT piss my vote away on someone who is unlikely to win. I guess they call that "voting your conscience."

We need to write in McCain on the national ballot. Or go the 'none of the above' route.

John McCain would be excellent. So would be Howard Baker or Joseph Biden. Or just about anyone you could pick out of a hat. What we have, though, is two perfect shits to pick from.

I'd go for Devlin's idea if McCain showed any interest in it. As it stands it's the lesser of two evils and Kerry seems less likely to continue actively trying to erode our rights and destroy the environment.

I just wish one of them would even acknowledge that HUMAN and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are still a good idea.

Martha Stewart, who's with me?

Cath

Only if she and Dubya can switch places.

Being gay and not thinking opening marriages to homosexuals is a good idea are not mutually exclusive. There are reasons other than bigotry not to support gay marriage.

I'm gay by the way, and I don't think marriage is something the government should have any buisness in at all. It's like a religious and contractual ceremony rolled into one, and that makes it ugly. Gay couples want it opened for contractual reasons, the opponents want it kept heterosexual for religious reasons.

It's like arguing over the civil war. The guy for the south is arguing over state's rights, and the guy for the north is arguing over slavery. It just doesn't work.

Did anyone watch PBS's Frontline last week called "The Jesus Factor"? It was about dubyas evangelical christianity and how its influenced him, and how he's eroded church state separation (one of the interesting things they revealed was that so far the money from the faith based initiatives has ONLY gone to christian groups). It viewable online and well worth an hour. You can find it here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/

I usually vote a 3rd party. Wow, that bit me in the ass last time.

I'll be voting Kerry to oust Bush. There's no way Kerry could do a worse job, and that leaves the possibility of him doing better. Bush is not going to change.

I've specifically sought out and had conversations with people from as many different countries as I could find - universally, they describe Bush as laughable at best. A president's purpose is to be a face for the country - we have a government for the rest of the stuff.

If we were to reelect Bush again, I don't think I could have a shameless conversation with a foreignor again.

As we, Americans, are the only ones to have the power to put someone else in office, we owe it to the world to oust Bush.

Most foreignors I've spoken with see the initial election of Bush as a mistake and forgivable. I'm certain they wouldn't feel the same way about us reelecting him.

The Austrians didn't worry about our opinion when they elected a Nazi as their President, did they? Nobody else does, either. Vote for Kerry if you think he will do a better job, that's a great reason to vote for him, but as for foreigners, there is no need for them to like us, so long as they fear us. If you want a friend, buy a dog; it won't bite you in the ass like a European would.

Uh David, you might want to read up on the facts surrounding Jorg Haider... he is no more the president of austria than schwarzenegger is yours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%F6rg_Haider

I was talking about Kurt Waldheim. If the US government won't permit him entry because he was a Nazi, and he was in fact the political leader of Austria, where are my facts not correct?

God, that was a long time ago. Sorry, my mistake then

I respect your opinion David, but I don't agree with it.

I don't see the President as all that important when it comes to domestic concerns, and generally, like you said, he doesn't matter too much for foreign affairs.

That is until we start specifically antagonising other countries. As we move more and more toward a one world society, our foreign policies are going to become increasingly important.

I think down the line, it's gonna be very damaging for us to have had a president in our history that basically said F you to everyone else sharing the planet. It will be exponentially more damaging if we Reelect this person.

And yes, I do think Kerry will do a much better job, but mainly because he Isn't Bush.