Reply
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 09:24 am
John Kerry has officially lost my vote.
Kerry will not receive my vote for two reasons. He does not support my positions, and he does not show the political character that I want in a leader.
The exact moment when I was certain my conscience would not allow me to vote for Kerry was last week when I read about Kerry's unqualified support for targeted killings in Israel. This, combined with his tepid non-support of the right of marriage for homosexuals and equally mediocre stances on health care and taxes show that he does not represent my beliefs or my values.
This is enough reason to justify my decision.
There are those who believe that they should do anything to get Bush out of office. I undestand this position. But, this perspective has led to two particularly weak candidates from the Democrats in the past 8 years.
It bothers me when the Dems blame me, or a third party candidate for their problems. No one is "stealing" my vote. I am choosing to use my vote to help change the system that creates the horrible choices offered by elections like this one.
Many say that Kerry is better than Bush. But this is not correct.
Rather, Bush is worse than Kerry - and he won't be receiving my vote either.
Will you be sitting out the election?
I do wish your Senator Kerry would take the opportunity to distinguish himself from George Bush more often.
As I see it, the power to appoint judges to your high court is sufficient reason alone to vote for Kerry over Bush.
I continue to be far more concerned with electing a ideologically bi-cameral congress than I am with the president.
greenumbrella wrote:Will you be sitting out the election?
I do wish your Senator Kerry would take the opportunity to distinguish himself from George Bush more often.
As I see it, the power to appoint judges to your high court is sufficient reason alone to vote for Kerry over Bush.
I will not sit out -- that would be wasting my vote.
I am planning to vote for Nader. I agree with him on many of the issues and I like the message that he is sending. A Nader vote sends a very clear message that there are a significant number of progressive voters out there looking for a candidate or party who will support them.
This is far from a wasted vote, it is the best chance of helping the country in the long term.
"As I see it, the power to appoint judges to your high court is sufficient reason alone to vote for Kerry over Bush."
Yes, excellent point.
I wrote and told him a long time ago that he would not get my vote if he voted for the war.
I changed my mind, for the good of the country.
We can put him in, and if we don't like how he does, we can vote for someone better in 08.
I hope you will re-consider, eBrown.
It will be a long time before we get someone with the courage to stand up and say NO to Isreal. I don't know why that is; maybe a big Jewish vote, maybe a money thing?
Bush has the same stance on this as Kerry, and these are our only two real options. It's too bad.
But idealism won't get us anywhere, either.
Voting idealisim is fruitless -- the way politics work, pragmatism is the only thing one can consider. It's awfully early in the campaign and both sides are feeling their way with the voter. Of course, they know there are issues that a politician is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'm not making up my mind to reject or accept any candidate and likely won't until a week before the election.
I don't think its too early to learn about the candidates... I mean, we like to look at their voting history, so why not watch it in action?
I think the 2 main parties need a wake up call... and that is by us voting for independent parties. Otherwise, things won't improve.
We're mired in a two-party system the forefathers feared would take hold of our government. It's unfortunatly true that by voting off-the-board will almost certainly re-elect Bush.
eBrown...
You know my position on this.
I'm sure I can say nothing that would convince you.
I will thus just say for the record that this is one of the most terrifying things I've read on A2K, and that I think you are deeply, tragically wrong.
L.R.R., weren't the parties supposed to have received a "wake up call" with votes for third-party candidates in 2000? Would you say that that accomplished anything at ALL??
Suzy,
If you are a progressive voter, I hope you reconsider.
You make my point. A vote for Kerry does not allow us to vote for someone better in 08. The incumbant president is an almost certain presidential nominee.
A Kerry victory doesn't mean a better choice in 08. It means the same choice. The race will be Kerry - Cheney (or some other non choice). and we will be having the same discussion all over again.
No one is standing up for progressive issues. This is precisely because progressive voters are willing to roll over and fall into line for a Democratic establishment that doesn't really support them.
You are asking me to leave my idealism and accept the status quo. This is precisely the problem.
The more people who have the courage to hold onto idealism the sooner we will have "someone better" who can represent our ideals.
EDIT: fixed spelling error
My intellect sides with ebrown. But, I can't bring myself to vote other than Kerry. Rhetoric is not the only way to judge a candidate. They all say what they feel gives the best chance they will get votes. Kerry has obviously read the electorate as supporting targeted killings and the other things I don't like. Once in office, I believe he would move to restore rationality to the process. In short, don't believe what he says now; just get him in the White House.
I voted 3rd Party in the last 3 elections. The two main parties straight cheated Ross Perot on his last time around when they didn't let him participate in the debates on the bogus premise that he didn't have a chance. (4 years earlier he had doubled his following during the debates and eventually garnered 19% of the popular vote)
General Wesley Clark could have received my vote, but the selection of Kerry pretty much signed sealed and delivered it to Bush. Everyone hates Bush. Now Kerry has just ticked off the Church... and went to bed with the NRA? This might be the perfect time for a third Party Candidate to show up. Where are you Ross?
I share your anger with Kerry on the gay marriage issue. I have many gay friends and the ones in long term 'marriages' are more successful at it than many of my straight friends who have been married and divorced at least twice.
The other thing that troubles me about Kerry is his vote authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. This is not something you can run away from as the dead bodies of US soldiers begin piling up at Dover.
Shame on Kerry for supporting Bush!
sozobe wrote:L.R.R., weren't the parties supposed to have received a "wake up call" with votes for third-party candidates in 2000? Would you say that that accomplished anything at ALL??
I think it did in the last election, but things have happened since then that is leading the 2 main parties to turn a blind eye to the needs and opinions of the citizens of this country.
We are doomed if bush is reelected. We may be doomed if someone else is, but I'm willing to chance possible doom to sweep out certain doom. IMO.
Well, as a woman, I couldn't possibly vote for Bush. I believe in my heart and soul that he and his pals are committed to overturn Roe v. Wade and that simply can't be allowed to happen.
I will have to vote for Kerry because he is on record supporting a woman's right to choose.
Plus, I just can't stand Bush and Cheney. They make me feel ill when I see or hear them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace