Kerry has lost my vote.

Ebrown_p, how could you not vote for Kerry knowing that Bush will have the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with the most dangerously consevative judges he can find?

I agree with your reasons for not voting for Kerry if they were acted on in an election with two decent candidates. That isn't the case here, and the results of too many people voting purely on conscience may be the end of democracy as we know it (ironic and sad as that is). This election is almost life or death for this nation.

Please reconsider.

By all means, we will have a court of Scalias.

Congratulations Ebrown; you've managed to re-stick me on the fence, though it is a different fence. You've presented an excellent argument. I have little doubt Bush will be re-elected without my help and am reconsidering the idea of continuing to use my vote to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with the choices presented. Perhaps we'll cancel each other out in the Bush/Kerry thing and double the voice for change.

Brown wrote


Somehow I can't believe that Israel's targeted killing and whether gays be allowed to marry are of earth shaking importance or will effect the well being of this nation. Regarding health care and taxes, what specifically do you object to. Remember even if elected he can only do what is doable.

This is not true. Gore lost the election the same way Kerry is losing it now. Gore had every opportunity to earn my vote, but didn't.

However it is also irrelevent. My point in this post is that I will not vote for Kerry. I would not vote for Kerry even if Nader wasn't in the race. Nader has nothing to do with this decision. I am only grateful that he provides a place for me to put my non-Kerry vote that will be counted in some meaningful way.



This type of hyperbole is getting tedious.

I assume that your use of the year 1933 is a reference to the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany. This is just silly.

This is just another election. Perhaps more devisive then most (although not the most divisive). But I believe in democracy and my country and we will be all right no matter who wins the election.

Our democracy has survived through wars and foreign threats before. We have had national divisions and disagreements before. We have lived divisive presidents before and this is not the first time that someone labled a grave threat to democracy was elected.



LOL



I remember hearing this from the Republicans in 1992 and 1996. I think I distinctly recall hearing this from the Democrats in 1980.

If I am not mistaken, this type of statement turned out to be a bit of an exaggeration in each case.

I know what you mean regarding Palestine, I agree with you completely. However, I think edgarblyth summed up pretty good with the way I feel about it.

America is relatively new to the whole Israel/Palestine issue, I found out after reading Clark's book, and it will take us a while to understand the Palestine side.

Au, I don't want to get into a tangential debate in this thread, but the US policy is the Middle East is one of the most important issues for me. I find US actions in the region, especially in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to be a morally wrong. This is certainly a relevant issue in a presidential race.

Brown
The middle east is not listed among your reasons for a no vote on Kerry. In fact I would think that would be a reason for voting for Kerry inorder that Bush the perpetrator of most of the problems in that region lose the election.
In any event I was curious about the reasons given that turned you against Kerry.

ebrown- I think I have a better chance than Ralph Nader. But, I share your frustration with Kerry on a number of things. However, with Bush, I dislike everything.

ebrown- a thoughtful and interesting thread. While I disagree, I respect your convictions.

Nader
I think that Nader will drop out around a month before the election. I am not enthusiastic about Kerry at all but the alternative spells doom or America.

I agree with others that Nader speaks for me on many matters. I am not lined up with Kerry issue by issue. I agree with Diane here, and others speaking before, that this election is crucial for the life of this nation. And with Dys, who mentioned the import of the nature of the members of Congress.

My pollyanna self would like to see Kerry win to bring the country back to center, and then to see a big window for a person or people of other than center or right view to have a chance to win and, further, govern well. I think we are tilting crazily in the wrong direction, and foundering is a real possibility, so I do not want the Bush team to win the office.

That said, I am not going to try to change ebrown's mind. Not my way. I post to speak for myself, and do listen with respect. Not that y'all don't, I know you do.

There's a lot of that going around, including "Bush is too dangerous! If Bush is elected, we are all doomed. DOOOOOOMED!!!!"

I'm sure everyone who is so frightened of George Bush has seen their friends and relatives dragged out of their homes at midnight by death squads, tortured for days, and then buried in mass graves. That's the only thing I know of that could cause such fear.


I agree completely. Even during the Clinton years, with the impeachment hearings and the entire world laughing at our country, we managed to muddle through.

Maybe it will be helpful to remember that John Kerry is not yet the Democrat's nominee. If he continues with his nonsense. more people will become disillusioned and look for another candidate. I wasn't all that interested in what the Democrats had to offer, but if I were forced to vote for one of them, I think Joe Lieberman would not be a bad leader.

I respect your honesty. There aren't too many people who want to think this through. Mostly, it's IHATEBUSHIHATEBUSH played at maximum screaming volume. Even to a conservative, your thread is refreshing.

The similarities between Bush and Kerry run deeper than the fact they are New England bluebloods and cousins.

They both champion US military adventurism in the Middle East fueled by the PNAC agenda.

They both think it's appropriate to use the FBI, CIA, NSA and the military to topple any foreign government that fails to act in America's interests.

They are both members of skull and bones.

However, the point at which they part company is on social issues.

So, if you're comfortable with 50% of the entire Federal budget going for the military and payments on the national debt, then Bush is your man.

However, if you believe in the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, a woman's right to have sovereignty over her own body, and the value of good working relations with the rest of the world, then Kerry is the clear choice.

Diane, Ossobuco et al.,

It sounds like abortion rights are the pivotal issue for you all. So let me ask an interesting question.

If John Kerry said that he believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, would you still vote for him?

I ask this because I don't want to vote for a candidate who takes positions that I find offensive. The idea of voting for the least worst bothers me and after a certain point . A third party candidate is a way to register displeasure when no one is representing you on important issues.

So what would you do?

Will you always vote for the "lesser of two evils"? Or do you, like me, have a line that when crossed, you won't give your vote.

infowarrior says


What evidence have you that Kerry champions either of those actions? I have not seen nor heard any that supports those allegations.

ebrown:

Here's an interesting piece by Ruth Conniff you might enjoy.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Published in the May, 2004 issue of The Progressive
When Kerry Was Liberal
by Ruth Conniff

The Bush campaign and its conservative patrons want you to know: John Kerry is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. More liberal than Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, the Generation GOP website crows. The Democrats couldn't have picked a more leftwing Presidential candidate if they'd nominated Dennis Kucinich, The Washington Times reports.

What's going on here?

The "most liberal" label comes from a credible source: the National Journal, bible of Beltway wonks. Guided by contributing editor and CNN commentator William Schneider, the National Journal has been using the same complicated, computerized process to rank "conservative" and "liberal" members of Congress since 1981.

But if Kerry is so liberal, why did Kucinich, Howard Dean, and even John Edwards attract more support from labor, peace activists, and other groups traditionally associated with the left? Why did Democratic Party leaders applaud when these "unelectable" progressives gave way to the more mainstream, moderate Kerry?

Using a different ranking system, the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action put Kerry at number twenty-five among Senate liberals in 2003. (Ted Kennedy ranked number five.) Nor does Kerry make the ADA's lifetime top-ten list of Senate liberals, headed by the late Paul Wellstone at number one.

Jeff Blodgett runs Wellstone Action, a group that trains political organizers and promotes progressive politics.

"Paul saw himself as part of a movement, connected to organizations around the country," Blodgett says. Wellstone proposed legislation that he knew would not pass, like a single-payer health insurance bill "just because he thought it should be part of the debate." More than anything he saw himself as an activist and a "voice for the voiceless," Blodgett says.

The same can hardly be said of John Kerry. He endorsed the idea of campaign finance reform but spent heavily to drive away potential opponents in his reelection campaigns. And he annoyed progressives in Massachusetts with his opposition to single-payer health care and his unenthusiastic support for raising the minimum wage--a major cause of his colleague Ted Kennedy. Kerry also supported the welfare reform bill that did away with Aid to Families with Dependent Children--a vote that more than anything divided the Wellstone liberals from the Clinton New Democrats.

A couple of things to know about the National Journal rankings: Kerry rated number one last year for the first time in more than a decade. Not coincidentally, 2003 was also the year he missed thirty-seven of the sixty-two votes tallied in the ranking process because he was out on the campaign trail.

What was not included in the National Journal rankings is at least as important as what was. The Journal looks at votes cast by Senators and Representatives in three areas: economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry missed all the 2003 votes in two of the three categories. So his ranking is based entirely on economic policy. Trade, an area where Kerry has always been at odds with the Democratic base, barely showed up on the radar screen. Some of the most significant votes he cast on the issue--for NAFTA, Fast Track, and normal trade relations with China--did not take place in 2003. On the most important trade votes in 2003, such as dropping trade barriers with Africa and the Caribbean, and free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, Kerry was a no-show.

Kerry isn't the only one whose record seems distorted in the National Journal. Some of the most conservative members of Congress found themselves rated as moderates because of their votes opposing the President's Medicare plan, supplemental appropriations for the reconstruction of Iraq, and the drug war in South America, all of which they viewed as wasteful government spending. Representative Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, a proud rightwinger who was rated among the moderates in 2003, told the National Journal it should change its ratings system.

It is undeniable that over the course of his lifetime, Kerry has racked up a liberal voting record. That record is reflected in his lifetime National Journal ranking of ninety-two out of 100 points--higher than the formerly pro-life Kucinich. But that's largely because Kerry was a liberal--during his first term. The previous time he was among the most liberal Senators, according to the Journal, was in 1990.

In a cover story entitled "What's Right with Kerry," in The Nation, David Corn recently declared "what distinguishes Kerry's career are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate."

Those moments, which Corn catalogues, mostly took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s: the Iran-Contra hearings, inquiries into the Reagan Administration's coddling of drug dealers, and the BCCI investigation that linked members of both parties to a bank supporting a network of criminals and terrorists. One of his last courageous stands was in 1996, when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which even Wellstone voted for.

But if the old John Kerry scored a lot of liberal points, the new John Kerry, the National Journal points out, was "especially moderate in his second term when it came to foreign policy issues." He voted for missile defense and intelligence spending legislation opposed by his Democratic colleagues. As Kerry likes to brag on the campaign trail, he endorsed sixteen out of nineteen military budget increases during his time in the Senate. Kerry's pro-military record is particularly galling to one of his constituents, John Bonifaz, the founder and director of the National Voting Rights Institute. Bonifaz even explored running against Kerry from the left in 2001, but decided not to when September 11 eclipsed his platform of economic and social justice.

Bonifaz was a young campaign staffer for Ted Kennedy in 1988. "I was not of the view that no one in the U.S. Senate was carrying the torch for progressive fights. There were some people, Senator Kennedy being one, Paul Wellstone being one." But Kerry, in Bonifaz's view, was no ally of progressives. His biggest beef with Kerry now is his support of the principle that Bush did not have to consult Congress again before invading Iraq--the subject of a lawsuit Bonifaz is pressing against the Administration.

Like most liberals and progressives, Bonifaz wants to see Kerry beat Bush. That raises the question: Why criticize him now?

"For starters, I'd like to see a debate at the Democratic National Convention on where the party stands about the process of going into war," he says. "Does the party embrace the [idea that] Presidents have inherent authority to invade other countries on their own volition, or does it embrace the view of the framers of the Constitution?"

Initially, Kerry explained his vote on the Iraq resolution by saying that the President had promised he'd go to war only with U.N. approval.

"Kerry made his own promise in a floor speech," says Bonifaz. "If the President didn't proceed to build a multilateral coalition, he'd be the first to speak out. He did not."

Instead, Bonifaz says, he stood by as the Administration blew off the international community and now endorses Bush on the war powers question.

Beyond that, says Bonifaz, a lot of people want to see a challenge to corporate politics. "That mobilized a lot of people behind Dean," he says. "Will Kerry embrace that message, or will he move to the center and right?"

If he keeps on the way he has been going, 2004 may be the year Kerry finally loses the liberal label.

Ruth Conniff is Political Editor of The Progressive.

Tarantulas,

Thank you for your support. But I would like to clarify something.

I still deeply hate Bush.

My objective is to ensure that the progressive point of view is represented. A vote for a candidate who supports positions that I find offensive means that no one needs to discuss the issues I feel are crucial.

A stronger than expected Nader showing (i.e. 6-8%) will be the best thing for the country. It means that people who think like me can no longer be taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other.

A real national political dialog would be nice.

EBrown
EBrown, I agree with your principles, but this time, for the first time in three elections, I will not vote for Nader, but I will vote for a democrat (Kerry) and hold my nose. Supreme Court appointments is the most important reason why. I cannot participate in risking the country's integrity to satisfy my political beliefs. In this case, there is a higher moral necessity to not inflict the Bushies on the country for another four years. That, I believe, would be immoral.

BBB

It is an issue, but that one is just part of a complex network of issues for me.