Is anyone else frustrated?

Nope, you get what you get. That's why primaries are so vitally important. The Dems blew their chance when theydecided Kerry and his long lost war buddy was the right choice for them.

General Motors Air Force Base:

You know - G M A F B.

Puh lea uzzz.

Turn off your TV.

Vote Kerry - Edwards.

Friends don't let friends vote republican. Tell your Republican neighbors to abstain if a vote for Bush is the alternative.

Otherwise put your vote in the Kerry column. Let the Iraqis broker their own resources. And let our soldiers come home.

It won't be a simple thing; but we have to aim for it - not a thirty years war to dominate a region that has no love for us. Should resources be pursued at the sacrifice of our humanity?

Vote for Bush if that's your bias. I would be able to face myself in a mirror if I voted for the appointed president. Let's elect one for a change; and somebody better. Now is your chance.

Was it a Freudian Slip? Or is the skinner box beginning to work?

I wouldn't be able to face myself in a mirror if I voted for Bush.

If I didn't vote against Bush it would be just as hard. I can't imagine abstaining. It would be like firing a blank when you had a real bullet to slay a dragon.

I'm frustrated with your frustration; or at least your variety of it.

Otherwise - I'm content to find that patience is its own reward.

If you don't want to vote for Bush, and ALSO don't want to vote for Kerry, then vote for SOMEBODY, a write-in candidate. Just VOTE!!! It is one of the most important consitutional rights that we still have in this country.

I think most seasoned Republicans have been disappointed with the Bush administration. There has been a lot of good accomplished and some things (the immigration policy - the prescription drug bill - spending like drunken sailors) that most conservatives simply cannot easily swallow.

On balance, I believe most of us think the good has outweighed the bad. That, plus the knowledge that George Bush for good or bad is who he is, is who he says he is, and is who his friends say he is. He is a man of convcition and with a sense of decency. I trust him to stick to his convictions to make national security a top priority and to tell us the truth as much as any president can.

John Kerry by hiw own words in the last year has proved to be an untruthful, self-serving man with little or no conviction on any issues that matter to most of us, while his track record is of the most extreme liberalism.

While we all wish we had somebody we could feel passionate about, to be responsible we have to go with the best that we believe is available. For me, it's a no brainer that the best that is available is George Bush.

Padmasambava, Just because Bush ruined america, doesn't mean I'm a democrat.

Dookiestix, if only it would do any good.

One of the things I agree with in this post is the part about George Bush being a no-brainer.

And that I agree with enthusiastially.

Or did I misread??????

I didn't really come here to be talked into voting for either candidate. I suppose I just came to complain about our two-party system. It bothers me that if you are not supported by either of the two big parties then you don't stand a chance.

I wish there was someone I wanted to win, instead of just using my vote to make someone lose.

And then, Fox, there are those who see Bush as practically the evil incarnate, and Kerry the one who makes sense, is honorable, and has been more consistent with the issues than Bush's myriad excuses for invading Iraq. It's frustrating to me that Bush has been allowed to get away with such egregious acts against both our state and it's people.

I think the bad has FAR outweighed the good, and that this administration is the most corrupt I have ever experienced in modern times. I'd MUCH rather have an intelligent President who has an understanding when it comes to war, rather than one who started a war doesn't have the balls to admit ANY mistakes and take responsibility.

John Kerry is also not the top rated "liberal" Senator. He ranks No. 11 among senators based on his lifetime average score of 85.7. Based on the lifetime rankings, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., is the most liberal incumbent, with a score of 90.3.

For some Democrats, Kerry hardly qualifies as a liberal.

In a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in February, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Kerry wasn't a liberal because he voted to authorize the war in Iraq and because of his support of the Patriot Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization.

Perhaps seasoned Republicans will consider the FACTS first before accepting your obvious blanket talking points in smearing Kerry. It is only fair. Perhaps they will also consider the world's disdain for Bush, and the fact that we need the world to like us again before they decide to help us again.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry

Good post, Dook.

This administration has done more harm to our country and to the world than they next ten worst administrations put together.

Bush is pathetic....and probably wouldn't have been able to be elected mayor of a very small town without his father's success to aid him.

Sorry Dookie, I see and understand your point of view and I just disagree with it almost 100%. I believe all the logic and evidence support the pro-Bush stance and the other side is engaging in empty, however wishful, rhetoric. At least there is a clear choice in this election.

Clear choice? Speak for yourself!

I did.

Kids, kids ... this thread deserved a better response than the liberals here have given. Damn - how to chase someone away from your POV in five easy steps.

Anyway, SCoates, what can I say? Even as a non-American, I feel your pain ... the two-party system sucks.

I feel your pain. New York has long been a Democratic stronghold due mostly in part to the stranglehold New York City has.

i do understand your problem here. you know that there are other parties you could vote with; libertarian w/ badnarik or for nader as an independent. to do so would give you the "protest" vote that you want to register. sadly, at this point in our nation's progress, that is all it would give you.

it is a dilema. i've been a registered libertarian since i was 19, but have really only voted that way locally. presidential, i voted republican till bush sr., came along. since then i've had to vote democrat?

why? because the republican party, in my view has done much to introduce things that are either fiscally unconservative or socially bending away at the constitution.

so, i've been forced to vote for the party that is best able to change that course.

so yeah, i'm with you. i wish there was someone running that i could really go wow! he's gonna be a great president. but right now, i have to be content that i believe kerry will do a better job than bush and vote that way.

my mom is one of those life long republicans ( with a capitol REPUBLICAN lol...)

she's not going to vote this time. my dad, also pretty darned republican, is going back and forth between voting for kerry and not voting.

hang in there. perhaps in your lifetime there will be a viable 3rd party.

Yep, very frustrated.

We need a multi-party system.

Look into third party candidates at local and state level elections.

If you're a Republican and don't like Bush, look into voting for a third party candidate for the presidency.

You don't have to vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.