How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!

[I'mSpartacus!]

John Kerry is running on image right now, nothing more, nothing less. If you ask a group of people to describe Kerry they will likely say "Veitnam war hero", "vet" or "moderate Democrat". If the Republicans don't work hard, very hard, to inform people of Kerry's true record, his true stands on the issues, and his ideology then Bush will lose in November and Kerry will be your next Commander in Chief (and the man who will appoint the new majority to the Supreme Court.

Few Americans see Kerry as a liberal:

"* Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters see John Kerry as a moderate while 37% say he is politically liberal. Liberal voters see Kerry as a moderate (59% of self-identified liberals have this view). Only 22% of liberal voters see Kerry as politically liberal."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush Kerry January 30.htm

I'll bet very few know his stands on these issues:

http://www.wsoctv.com/politics/2653091/detail.html

And I'll bet even fewer know his activities in the 1970s:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15631.htm

Problem is, it's harder to dispell an acquired image than it is to establish an image in the public mind early in a political race. So unless you want to see 4 - 8 years of a Kerry administration and 40 years of a court dominated by Kerry appointies then you'd better get working on activities like bringing up the facts to associates, letter writing to local newspapers and volunteering to work on campaigns to make sure Bush and other conservatives get elected.

 

[glocksman]

It'd be easier to defeat Kerry if GWB would start acting like a Texas Republican instead of a 'Rockefeller' Republican.

I'm sorry, but I won't vote for GWB merely because he's somewhat less offensive than Kerry.

 

[I'mSpartacus!]

Somewhat les????? Compare them on the issues I gave links to and then think about the philosophy of the judges Kerry would appoint! You know how they always point out that people who are "pro-choice" on abortion tend to be against the death penalty for murderers? It's true, due to the philosophy they have about morality and government's role. Those same people tend to want much more restrictions on people's right to have guns. Those are the ones Kerry would appoint to the courts. If that's what you want then that's what you'll get. I will note that "peace" libs will ignore Kerry's vote for the Iraq War and vote for him anyway -- I hope pre-2nd Amendment conservatives won't abandon Bush over views that his opponent won't hesitate to go much further on.

 

[ctdonath]

No question Kerry is very bad. Nobody here will argue against that.

Separately addressed, Bush is basically unsupportable: gutted the 1st Amendment, at best neutral on the 2nd (we'll see how the AWB is handled), arguably gutted the 4th & 5th, and has hugely increased spending sans income. If there was a (D) after his name, we'd be screaming "NEVER!!!"

The only reason to vote for Bush is he's better than Kerry (or Edwards, or Hillary, or ...).

Yes, we need to actively prevent Kerry (or Hillary as I'm guessing) from winning.

Bush needs to actively give his base a reason to vote FOR Bush, instead of just against "the other guy", lest someone else hop in and be the leader the right-wing wants.

 

[MicroBalrog]

The only reason to vote for Bush is he's better than Kerry (or Edwards, or Hillary, or ...).

Dean? I think if Dean was still running he would be the better option.

Otherwise, vote Libertarian.

Both D and R options are wannabe tyrants. All you can do is make the statement.

 

[hillbilly]

If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

We saw that in 1992 when so-called Reform Party voters threw enough votes to Perot so that Clinton was elected with only 42% of the popular vote.

Yeah, 42% got Slick Willy elected because all those Reform Party idiots felt superior and moral about "sending a message" with their votes.

And, ask far-left, liberal Greens about their "message" votes cast for Ralph Nader last year. Who did those far-left, liberal Greens send the White House with their "message-sending" votes?

Voting third party to "send a message" is not just a bad idea. I'd say it's completely idiotic.

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

I think Idea A is so imporant, that I am going to vote in such a way to guarantee that the candidate whose Idea X is the exact opposite of my Idea A gets elected!!!!

Yeah! Right On! Amen!!!!!!!! We'll show those idiots! We'll put Satan in power to show the Saints that they aren't Saintly enough for us morally superior, enlightened folks!

hillbilly

 

[ClonaKilty]

Problem is, it's harder to dispell an acquired image than it is to establish an image in the public mind early in a political race.

Actually, a convincing and eloquent speaker could readily do just this during a campaign.

I think if he could communicate his ideas, Bush could have a very strong forward-looking vision for America, and inspire many voters. If you are honest about it, I think you'll agreee that he simply cannot speak effectively -- and this fact has me thinking he'll lose this election.

 

[Jay Kominek]

If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

Uhh. I think you're a little confused on how the voting mechanism works. Not voting, and voting third party have the same "disastrous" effect as far as you're concerned. Third party votes don't magically go to support the opposite of your position, rather they simply "detract" support.

Amusingly, you seem to have developed this idea that somehow, the Republicans are closer to the Libertarian position than the Democrats. In fact, neither is even remotely close any more. Perhaps one of them was historically closer, but at this point, thats long gone. They both want to strip us of our rights, and increase the size of government.

As a Libertarian, I won't be happy regardless of which one of them wins. Its lose-lose for me. So I'll be sending my message, thanks.

And as far as I'm concerned, settling for the lesser of two evils when there are good choices available to you is the most disgusting, repugnant activity you can engage in, and I won't partake of it.

[edit: Mind you, as I point out in my second paragraph, there isn't even a lesser of the two evils. They're both so thoroughly horrible that I can't even point at one and say "Ok, he isn't quite as evil!"]

 

[Don Gwinn]

Aw, geez. . . . voting is not betting!

If you want credit for picking the guy who eventually wins, there are services in Las Vegas that can and gladly will take your bet.

Voting is NOT about picking the person you think is going to win, it's about picking the person you believe should win.

Now, I'm not saying that you should never consider "viability" in choosing your vote. If there's a candidate with a good chance to win who is not objectionable to you, but merely does not go quite as far as you might like, voting for him might be a better choice than a vote for the guy who proclaims himself ready to go that last five percent for your chosen issue but clearly will not win.

That's a far cry from labeling people idiots simply for voting their consciences. Stick to the High Road, please.

At this point, I'm leaning toward a vote for Bush. We'll see, as events unfold. I'm not terribly happy with him at the moment, but I don't see any third party candidates who are very compelling, either. The election is, after all, nearly a year away. But I'm not going to insult people simply for doing what they think is right.

 

[Sven]

It's time for a third party, filled with people FED UP with reckless spending and legislating.

 

[HABU]

Fear not, Sylvia Brown says that bush will beat Kerry.

 

[I'mSpartacus!]

What Hilbilly said deserves repeating!

"If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

We saw that in 1992 when so-called Reform Party voters threw enough votes to Perot so that Clinton was elected with only 42% of the popular vote.

Yeah, 42% got Slick Willy elected because all those Reform Party idiots felt superior and moral about "sending a message" with their votes.

And, ask far-left, liberal Greens about their "message" votes cast for Ralph Nader last year. Who did those far-left, liberal Greens send the White House with their "message-sending" votes?

Voting third party to "send a message" is not just a bad idea. I'd say it's completely idiotic.

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

I think Idea A is so imporant, that I am going to vote in such a way to guarantee that the candidate whose Idea X is the exact opposite of my Idea A gets elected!!!!

Yeah! Right On! Amen!!!!!!!! We'll show those idiots! We'll put Satan in power to show the Saints that they aren't Saintly enough for us morally superior, enlightened folks!

hillbilly"

 

[Daedalus]

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

Because I am not in the business of drinking piss and I am not going to have my vote based on deciding whose is sweeter.

 

[I'mSpartacus!]

Yep, voting 3rd. party to teach George Bush a lesson is like cutting off your testicles to teach your ex wife who'se really in charge!

 

[rick_reno]

Fear not, Sylvia Brown says that bush will beat Kerry.

I have no doubt Bush will beat Kerry, but he won't do it on my vote. I voted for him last time, I went door to door in my neighborhood for him and I contributed funds to his campaign. I'm not willing to do any of those things this time. He's lost my support. I'm not sure what he stands for anymore. His agenda has shifted from what's good for America to what's good for Geroge Bush, and the only thing that is good for George Bush is getting another four years in the White House. In talking with friends and family here in N. Idaho - and this should be Bush country - he's lost a lot of support. The other day at a pistol club meeting we were sitting around BS'ing about the election and not one of the people in attendance said they would vote for Bush.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

If the Republicans don't work hard, very hard, to inform people of Kerry's true record, his true stands on the issues, and his ideology then Bush will lose in November and Kerry will be your next Commander in Chief (and the man who will appoint the new majority to the Supreme Court.

The news media seems to be doing the Republican patry's work for them.

With their obnoxious misrepresentations about Bush's National Guard record The Dems and their allies in the news media are doing a magnificant job of firming up Bush's republican base.

Every time Rather, Jennings, Brokow, Zahn, et al. do another dishonest hit piece about Bush's service, more Republicans get pissed off and become motivated to get out and vote next November.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Yep, voting 3rd. party to teach George Bush a lesson is like cutting off your testicles to teach your ex wife who'se really in charge!

People need to recall where we'd be if Bush senior had been re-elected instead of voting for Perot.

There'd be no Ruth Ginzberg on the Supreme Court, no AWB, etc.

 

[glocksman]

There'd be no Ruth Ginzberg on the Supreme Court, no AWB, etc

Think so?

I personally think that Bush41 would have signed an AWB.
After all, he signed the executive orders prohibiting imported AW's.

Also, we probably would still have a Democratic Congress if Bush had won.
The 94 Republican takeover was a direct reaction to Clinton's performance in office.

 

[Moparmike]

I would like to hear suggestions on how to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in 2005 without suggested options being voting for someone I find to be repugnant and completely bereft of the skills needed for holding the office of President.

waiting...





waiting...





waiting...





waiting...




Yep, that's what I thought. I think my vote will be going to a worthy candidate. The one who represents me the closest, a libertarian.

 

[ctdonath]

People need to recall where we'd be if Bush senior had been re-elected

People need to recall why Bush senior had not been re-elected.

"Read my lips - no new taxes." Then he passed a massive tax increase. Then his voter base decided to go elsewhere - anywhere.

Bush junior swore to uphold the Constitution - then gutted the crown jewel (timely political speech). As a result of this and related betrayals, his voter base is going away.

Republicans WIN when they stick to conservative principles.
Republicans LOSE when they appeal to socialists.
Republicans may figure this out some day.

 

[MacViolinist]

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

What if both parties are equally far from the principals you hold dear?

-drew

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

But I don't want "Country OR Western."

 

[Shooter 2.5]

The vote in November is the ultimate public opinion poll. If you want the country to move to the right, you vote for Bush. If you want it to move to the left, you vote for Kerry.
We were lucky enough to get rid of gore so I can't see why gun owners want a return to the dems.
This is going to be a two way race. Betting on the broken down third nag still in the stables does nothing.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The vote in November is the ultimate public opinion poll. If you want the country to move to the right, you vote for Bush. If you want it to move to the left, you vote for Kerry.

Hmm. So who should I vote for if I want the country to move towards freedom, rather than mommy-state fascism or daddy-state socialism?

We're probably SOL as a society anyhow, so why not go down with our principles more or less intact?

- Chris

 

[HBK]

If you vote third party, it's basically a vote for Kerry. Talk all you want about princilples and voting your conscience, but that's what it is. If enough people vote Libertarian, then Kerry will win and we can kiss any chance of having a conservative Supreme Court emerge any time soon goodbye. If we vote for Bush, we get that conservative Supreme Court and we can make headway over the next four years to move towards freedom and constitutionalism. We desperately need a conservative Supreme Court. What we have now, make no mistake, is a SC that leans to the left. I think Bush can do some great things in his second term when he doesn't have to worry about being reelected. (And no, I don't mean move the coutry towards facism. )