Kerry has lost my vote.

The gay marriage issue is very likely to be decided by the USSC, overturning anything the states put into law either way. There will obviously be no amendment to the Constitution even if Bush were reelected. It's a polticial football and a diversion from the most important issues like our occupation of Iraq. All candidates know this and would be advised to soft-pedal their position on gay marriage. Hey, that's politics.

Well, Bush has said he will sign the Assault Weapons ban so wouldn't that mean he's no fan of the Second Amendment?

ebrown-

A couple of questions:

Why is targetting a Hamas leader more immoral than a Palestinian blowing up a bus load of Israelis trying to get to work on time?

And, did you raise an outcry when we targeted Bin Ladn with an unmanned killer drone?

Panzade,

My point is that Kerry does not support my point of view. I would be happy to explain my point of view on another thread (or by PM).

I find both targeted killings and suicide attacks to be morally reprehensible. There are many progressive thinkers who agree with me on this. I would find it difficult to vote for a politician who supported either of these actions.

The question I have been asking myself is can I vote for Kerry even though I disagree with his positions -- and in some cases find them offensive.

I could overlook a certain number of things for political reasons (and because I dislike Bush). I would hold my nose entering the voting booth, and wash my hands afterwards.

But, there is a point where I can no longer give a candidate my vote in good conscience.

For me, Kerry has reached that point. There are a number of reasons why, but his statements on the Middle East were the thing that pushed him over the line.

Panzade, who says it's more immoral? It's not, but opinion about palestinian terrorism is clear. Opinion about Israeli terorrism is not - killing Hamas leader is not terrorism, it's just pure stupidity that will only continue violence, but Israeli Army is also killing kids that are throwing stones at them sometimes...and by many moves of official Israel I am pretty sure that today (TODAY!) they're bigger threat to peace in that area then Palestinians.

as for elections, it would be nice if people could always vote FOR. unfortunately, sometimes it's more important that people vote AGAINST. I may agree with you eBrown that Nader is best option for USA but he has absolutely no chance of winning. And, as Michael Moore said long time ago, voting for Nader is actually voting for Bush (at least this moment). If you agree that Bush is worst choice, then maybe you should reconsider your plans.
Of course, your vote is your vote, don't get me wrong.

Truthfully, Nader is the only candidate, besides Cucinich, anywhere near my position in politics. Kerry is a very poor choice over Nader and C., but Bush is simply too dangerous to be kept in another four years.

There is one other consideration to take into account before voting. Should Kerrey be elected he will in all likelihood be faced with a republican congress thus restoring the concept of balance of power. On the other hand a Bush presidency would result in a continuation of the present congressional rubber stamp. Could you imagine what the makeup of the supreme court would look like should Bush get reelected. I for one do not believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face. I would further ask when was the last time you voted someone into office that was in concert with all your political beliefs and wishes?

The Supreme Court issue is also a reason for me to vote for Kerry. It falls into the "Bush is too dangerous" line of thought.

I feel for you, e-brown. Not that we are famous for political agreement, but I really hate to see a person of conscience put in a position like this. With your beliefs, I would probably vote for Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

For myself, it's probably Bush on the devil-we know vs the devil-we-don't.

Don't worry, e-brown. By the time summer's over Kerry will have flipped and flopped all over so many times that you won't know where he stands on anything.

Yowza.
If I thought Nader had a shot, I might consider. (I've already had this argument with myself).
Ross Perot is a flake. Some of his ideas sounded sensible, then he started getting bizarre. Thank God he didn't get in.
Dennis Kuchinic, (sp?) I coulda got behind him. He may have a shot one day.
If Kerry wins this, that doesn't mean he will be re-elected. particularly if Hillary runs. She's more popular than it would seem.
The thing is, e-brown, Nader isn't going to win. he has even lost some of the votes he got last time around. The choice is pretty much Bush or Kerry.
They are both of the same mind about Israel, but they are worlds apart on some other important matters. This is an important election.
I've been a constituent of Kerrys forever, and I don't always agree with him and feel that sometimes he goes with the flow more than he should (and more than he wants to) but I also feel that sometimes, you have to, if you wanna stay in the game. I think it's a political reality.
As for targeted killings, we tried this with Osama. I used to object to such a thing, but that was before we were viciously attacked.
It is unforunate that we always have to be involved in what Israel does.
If Kerry came out and said "I don't approve" it wouldn't matter. Israel will do what it wants and Kerry knows that, anyway. What is Nader's position on Israel and why does he believe it matters? By that I mean, why does he think it would work for us?

You are wrong. Nader does have a shot. Not a shot to be president. Nader, together with progressive voters, has a shot to make this country a better place in the long run.

To me this is important.

The problem with your argument is that a vote for Kerry is *more* than an a vote against Bush. A vote for Kerry says someone with his positions belongs in the White House.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for mediocraty and the status quo.

A vote for Kerry is a vote against gay marriage and a vote for the war in Iraq. This doesn't mean that you support all of these issues. But in the voting booth you are presented with a limited number of levers. Pulling the Kerry lever is counted as a vote for Kerry-- and nothing else.

When Kerry was nominated, a big part of the argument is that he is "electable". His strategy seems to be to take the progressive voters for granted. This frees him to do and say things that many of us find offensive.

If Kerry is correct, the progressive voice in this country can safely be ignored. This effectively silences our voice. Is this wnat you want to support?

I don't buy it! I was willing to give Kerry a bit of leeway, but he has crossed the line.

Progressives can get back their voice by insisting that a candidate who expects our votes respect our positions. A vote for Kerry is a step in the wrong direction.

The Democrats sold Kerry to us by saying he was "electable". If they were correct - he will have to be "electable" without my vote.

If they were wrong, maybe they will learn they need to find someone with principle and character if they want to earn the votes of progressive.

You know, ebrown, I sort of have the same feeling about it. I voted for Nader last time around, and my rationale was that if you look at the big picture, it's okay if your guy doesn't win, as long as that voice and those principles seep into the government. Also, I thought that maybe if people kept voting for somebody with principles, someday, maybe ten, twenty, fifty years down the line, things will have moved in that direction enough to actually elect someone like that.

But you have to look at the small picture too, and sometimes you have to sacrifice your larger view in order to stop the beast at your door. When Bush won, I thought, that's okay, how bad could he really be?

But we are now at war, and I think the situation is much more dangerous. It isn't just Bush you have to worry about, it's Cheney and this whole PNAC thing that he blindly follows, which, I believe, will bring on constant war that could last for decades, if someone doesn't put the breaks on soon. I don't think, with all his faults, Kerry has a plan that will bring us down that same road.

Sometimes you have to lose a little bit to win in the end. I'm still not sure about who I will vote for, and things could change, but that's the way it looks to me right now.

Voting for Nader the last time around basically put Bush in the White House and with his intent to invade Iraq (his not bringing it up as an issue was actually a major clue). We're there now and changing course is the only way to get out. How would Nader disengage and bring the troops back? It's true the a true Jeffersonian liberal progressive cannot reach a higher office -- it's the moderate or centrist who can. I suspect Kerry is hiding just as much about what he will actually and actively do in office. This is the MO of a functioning politician. There are no Everyman candidates including Nader (who is also a multi-millionaire). It makes me doubt his sincerity in not running for a lesser office -- he might very well win a governorship which is a proven road to the White House.

The issue of gay marriage I think is slipping through the hands of the politicians -- perhaps it's lubed up with too much KY.

Kerry is short both on principle and character but this is more than just another election. There is an on going major shift in the foundations of the political and economic culture of this nation. If the policies of the Bush administration are allowed to continue we will be back to a pre 1933 nation with all of the intrusive technologies of the 21st century and the 2008 election may not matter. Bush has to be put out of office now.

I have never really bought the argument that Kerry is electable; that is, without an enormous amount of lucky breaks. I said on a2k before he became the certain nominee that he was sort of a Democratic Bob Dole - a sacrificial lamb or something. But, progressives are the odd man out in almost every election, and I have decided to ignore Nader this time around.

Is there anyone here who is perfect on principal and character? Can we expect anything more from a politician? According to many, the Pope has had transgressions in principal and character.
It means nothing -- it does mean something to boot What Me Worry? out of office.

(Or should I say "What Me No Sorry?")

"But you have to look at the small picture too, and sometimes you have to sacrifice your larger view in order to stop the beast at your door."

"this is more than just another election. There is an on going major shift in the foundations of the political and economic culture of this nation."

I couldn't agree more.