Election

[iamang77]

So, I'm still undecided on who to vote for in the upcoming Presidential Election. Given, I don't have to decide yet... I still have over 4 months. But I recently read that only about 5% of Americans are still undecided on who to vote for. I found that surprising (and somewhat sad). I wonder if people are almost too convinced -- know what I mean? Another way to say it is if SO many people are SO sure of who they are voting for SO far ahead of time, it makes me think that a lot of people are being blindly partisan. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the vibe I get.

I'm not loyal to any party, and I'm not that excited about the Presidential prospects so far...yet I feel like I should vote. Any thoughts? Are any of you absolutely convinced on who you are voting for? And if so, why?

[Rrose Selavy]

Oh, that kind of election!

I voted for Bush the first time and I have no regrets about it. This time I do have reservations, obviously concerning Iraq which I was always skeptical of and now strongly disapprove of having gone to war with. At the same time I really do not want Kerry to be my president.

Ever since I started voting I only voted on issues where I could make a clear and knowledgable decision. For example I have never voted for a district court judge because of our ridiculous state laws that prohibit judges from telling us anything about themselves for fear of losing their impartiality. Concerning the presidential ballot, I might have to leave that one blank, because I might not be able to vote for either with even a semi-clean concience. Maybe it's a protest non-vote. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Although Bush might still be the best one to finish what we started in Iraq. I still have 4 months to decide.

[robkemp]

well ang, i'm w/ ya, i have no idea who i am voting for but given that i live in florida i have plenty of excuses, heck even after i vote who know if my vote will even be counted. and you are right this is probably one of the most partisan elections and most people are partisan without even thinking about it. another effect of lincoln on politics. last issue of time magazine had some interesting articles on this election and the issue of faith which is extremely partisan.

[chasingsophia]

Rob, don't give me that disenfranchised Floridian baloney*. Keep it up and I'll give you such a dented chad you'll forget your NPR station number.

Hehe. I've wanted to start a band called "The Swinging Chads" ever since 2000.

On topic, however, I've come to agree with many that there is no perfect option for a true political conservative: Bush has been busy erecting more government, and Kerry really only wants to one-up him. Still, I think that if I sat down with W, we'd agree on more than we'd disagree, at least regarding what we would want the U.S. to become, if not how to get there.

I remember in '02, a flyer circulating at concerts in Minneapolis: "Register Green, Vote Democrat." Interesting how even the hard left, the outright socialists (term not used pejoratively), see more in common with the Democratic party. Note also the pragmatism: until they can increase their numbers, they'll go with the "lesser of two evils."

Do I like what I've heard about the Patriot Act? No. Do I have serious reservations about current U.S. foreign policy? Yes. Do I get tired of Rumsfeld asking himself ridiculous questions just so he can answer them the way he wants? Most definately.

But here's the kicker, I guess: I am sure, very, very sure, that if Gore was prez, or any other Democrat, his actions would have been nearly the same following 9/11. I know it. I know it because Kerry hasn't said how he would've changed a thing, except the one-liner, "international cooperation." But not a single word about what he would've done differently, I mean, really differently.

And I think, too, that Bush is better suited to finish what we got started in Iraq: we CANNOT just pull out of there. For better or for worse, we're there, and terrorism has become a real threat here, and I think Bush and Powell and Rice are best equipped to get it done.

*Yes, it's spelled "baloney."

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 25, 2004 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Chasing Sophia ]</font>

[rick1162]

My good children:

1. This is a no-brainer: VOTE! Besides the fact that participating in representative government compels you act on this priviledge, many have shed their blood and given the ultimate price over the years to allow you to continue to carry out this simple act of civic duty without violence or hinderance as to its expression. Do not dishonor them, regardless of your choices on the ballot. Besides, voting also gives you the legitimate right to criticize those who have been chosen (ultimately by the will of God) to represent you.

If you don't vote, keep your mouth shut.

2. Bush, for all his faults, is a man for whom faith appears to have a significant personal role. I do not see this for Kerry (despite his occational lip-service). This speaks to character as well. If I'm wrong, well then I've been duped...but Bush will answer to God for it, not me.

3. This may seem overly simplistic of me (and I'd like all your views on this), but it seems to me that those who support the stated national policy of allowing millions of our fellow Americans to be slaughtered each year should be automatically disqualified from office. Period. It doesn't matter one snit how a person stands on other issues if that one is compromised. At the core, how can anyone govern justly and rightly when there is no regard for human life? I can't see how. Someone enlighted me.

What keeps me up at night is the fact that it's clear from the Bible that GOD JUDGES NATIONS. Are we foolish enough to think that He will not have an answer for our nation's sins (ALL of them)?

[derwen]

Jeshua, everyone--

I hope I'm not reading into your post something you didn't put there, but I tend to agree with you quite a bit. George Bush (for all his faults) is a man of faith. I also feel that he's more in touch "with the people" than John Kerry. Kerry's been continually characterized as aloof and uncaring--which I see.

I'm not sure the war in Iraq is going as well as it could be, and I don't care for some of Bush's policy on the environment, but I have to say that the major deciding factor for me for this election is abortion. John Kerry would return more "rights" to a woman to choose to do what she wants to her body, even though another life is involved. George Bush, I'm sure, would outlaw abortion if he could. I'm also sure that he tries to let his faith guide him when it comes to making policy.

Some of those policies I don't agree with, but overall, (yes, I'm choosing the lesser of two evils, here), I'd rather have him in office than John Kerry, because I think Bush will try to keep this country safe better than John Kerry.

Just my two cents, of course.

[Cagliostro]

President Bush has my vote. I don't agree with some of his positions, but I think Kerry would be a big mistake. If Joe Lieberman had been the Democratic frontrunner it may have been a harder choice but Kerry as candidate makes it an easy Bush vote for me.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Chasing Sophia:

Still, I think that if I sat down with W, we'd agree on more than we'd disagree, at least regarding what we would want the U.S. to become, if not how to get there.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just think GW should have followed in Johnny Carson's footsteps. Maybe he still can, and right away may I add.

Originally posted by Chasing Sophia:

But here's the kicker, I guess: I am sure, very, very sure, that if Gore was prez, or any other Democrat, his actions would have been nearly the same following 9/11. I know it. I know it because Kerry hasn't said how he would've changed a thing, except the one-liner, "international cooperation." But not a single word about what he would've done differently, I mean, really differently.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's interesting, because the Republicans big claim to fame is how they know the military better than the Democrats. Now you say the difference is neglible. I do agree with Kerry that Kerry would have gotten a better consensus among the international community than Bush did. It seems pretty evident that Bush wanted Saddam whether there was evidence or not.

Originally posted by Chasing Sophia:

And I think, too, that Bush is better suited to finish what we got started in Iraq: we CANNOT just pull out of there. For better or for worse, we're there, and terrorism has become a real threat here, and I think Bush and Powell and Rice are best equipped to get it done.

*Yes, it's spelled "baloney."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That reminds of Elmer Fudd, when he's hunting wabbits. Yes they are the best equipped to hunt wabbits.

The issue that nobody talks about is before 911 we IGNORED those who had views different from us. After 911 we have NO CHOICE but to annihilate them.

The problem is where is the middle ground? Has George Bush, even once, ever said what this country needs to do better itself?

George Bush panders to us by talking about problems that others cause, as if we don't cause any of our own.

Hitler used that style of politicking to keep his people loyal.

[chasingsophia]

That's interesting, because the Republicans big claim to fame is how they know the military better than the Democrats. Now you say the difference is neglible. I do agree with Kerry that Kerry would have gotten a better consensus among the international community than Bush did.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By pointing out that the difference is negligible, I mean to draw attention to the fact that national consensus, at least among our elected representatives, was nearly unified, and distinctions made to court the anti-war vote by Kerry are disingenuous.

We have international cooperation, with more countries like South Korea signing on as the process continues. Germany, France, and Russia do not the world constitute.

It seems pretty evident that Bush wanted Saddam whether there was evidence or not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's a Christian apologist named Josh McDowell who wrote a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. The problem with that title is that there's no such thing as evidence that demands a verdict. Evidence is presented, but given the presuppositions and committments of the will, it may not certainly render one verdict or another. The evidence may be there, but belief is an act of the will.

The issue that nobody talks about is before 911 we IGNORED those who had views different from us. After 911 we have NO CHOICE but to annihilate them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See also my thread titled "Foreign Policy." I disagree that we've ignored people with "views different from us" (I think you mean to include terrorists in this category?), to our shame, I think. We have meddled in others' affairs for our own gain, and I think we find ourselves committed to places like Iraq because of it. Our "foot is in the door," and though we maybe shouldn't have put it there in the first place, pulling it out isn't an option.

Has George Bush, even once, ever said what this country needs to do better itself?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">$15 billion in AIDS relief for Africa is a good start.

Hitler used that style of politicking to keep his people loyal.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Comparisons to Hitler cannot be taken seriously.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 08, 2004 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Mastedon Farm ]</font>

[chasingsophia]

Why is it misguided to conclude that John Kerry would have handled "The War on Terror" differently? I base it on basically the same observation you make, Aristarchus: we hear keep hearing "I would've done it better" without hearing how, or what precisely Kerry would've done differently. It's a false distinction he's making between himself and President Bush.