2004 Politics Thread: Are you going to VOTE??

[squirerad]

Or rather, who are you voting for? I know some people get very personal with politics, but I believe we can keep this civil.

Provide any thoughts you have regarding the 2004 Election, the candidates, etc. BTW, it''s okay to be completely neutral or not declare your loyalties. I would love to hear especially from those who are undecided at this point.

As for me, being from Cali and more particularly from the Bay Area, forgive me for just riding the California bandwagon.

squire

 

[chris-uk04]

I thought as the election grew nearer it would be fun to have a poll. A pricescope vote if you will. They always say that every election will be nastier than the ones in years past. This year will be particularly interesting.

In the right corner you have George W Bush, current US president. Bush is certainly no heir apparent to Ronald Reagan. Bush will benefit for his tough stance on terrorism in spite of being deemed a uni-laterist. He will also benefit for the tax cuts and the improved economy. Whether right or wrong, it is apparent that he does what he believes in rather than looking at opinion polls and focus groups. However, some conservatives lament his current wishy-washy policies in Iraq and his gross government spending habits. Current violence in Iraq could hurt him "by swing voters" if it is continued. Though, November is 4 months off and people's memories are short so a lot is still open.

In the left corner you have John Kerry, long time Massachusetts junior senator, who by the way, served in Vietnam. The best thing that John Kerry has going for him, is that he is not George W Bush. Many, including Democrats, are not really sure where he stands on issues. He speaks in generalizations and even Jay Leno takes shots at him for being on both sides of every issue. This will hardly inspire voters. He needs a define platform and take a stand if he wants to make an impact. Otherwise, his only chances will lie in a Bush failure where he is just placeholder of "not Bush."

In my unbiased observation, I think Bush will get re-elected, by a comfortable, but not huge, lead, similar to Clinton-Dole in ’96. John Kerry can’t grab the middle like Clinton did. I think the south and middle America will view him as being too much of a snobby northern liberal to get elected. True liberals will be voting for Ralph Nader anyway.

 

[winyan]

I'm not exactly thrilled w/any of the candidates.

I cannot stand the incumbent, I am not thrilled with Kerry also being Skull and Bones society member, and I think Nader is too egotistical.

I'm considering throwing my own hat (if I wore one) into the ring.

win

 

[fire&ice]

Of course I plan on voting. IMHO, one has *ABSOLUTELY* no right to b*tch about the Government if one doesn't vote.

I dunno. I am undecided. But, I do think that Nader will take some votes away from Kerry. I think the race would be closer if he was not in the race.

I think there is quite a few "he's not Bush" people out there.

 

[Judi W]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 11:07:50 AM fire&ice wrote:

Of course I plan on voting. IMHO, one has *ABSOLUTELY* no right to b*tch about the Government if one doesn't vote.

----------------

I agree that everyone should VOTE!!! Although it's a cliche - we all know how we would re-act if the right to vote was taken away from us! Even if you're unsure about who you want for President, there are many other races and issues on the ballot that you can vote for! GET OUT THAT VOTE!!!! If not, we ALL LOSE!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I'm voting for the lesser of two evils

lol - and this obviously is Kerry!

Michelle

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 10:19:29 AM winyan wrote:





I'm not exactly thrilled w/any of the candidates.

----------------

Okay when is this ever NOT true? Honestly, every 4 years the pool just seems to get scarier and scarier. Eh.

I will vote because as someone noted, can't whine later if you don't vote...and also because Greg makes me. He's a Republican by the way and thinks GWB is very good.

Who? Well I'm registered Democrat but I have Republican views...heh...but you would not catch me voting for GWB in this lifetime since if nothing else I can't stand that accent, so I will do a 'not Bush' vote aka Kerry which also effectively cancels out my better half's vote!

So Kerry...unless Win runs that is.

 

[foundnemo]

I always vote unless I forget to register!

I'm also a registered Democrat but I am probably a liberal Republican.

I don't like Bush and I can't figure out Kerry - well, I can't remember what he stands for. I may just vote for Kerry (like I did for Gore) because *HE* is not Bush. But my mind hasn't been made up yet.

 

[winyan]

Heh, maybe I should run, I have two votes already!

*grin*

win

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 11:07:50 AM fire&ice wrote:

Of course I plan on voting. IMHO, one has *ABSOLUTELY* no right to b*tch about the Government if one doesn't vote.

I dunno. I am undecided. But, I do think that Nader will take some votes away from Kerry. I think the race would be closer if he was not in the race.

I think there is quite a few 'he's not Bush' people out there. ----------------

I think voting is important and people should use their right to vote, BUT I think people should only vote if they are aware of the issues and know why they are voting for someone. While many people do, there are plenty of these “get out the vote drives” where political henchmen drive around in a big van trying to round up ignorant people to go vote the way they want to.

I think people should take caution when voting for someone just because they are not someone else. You never know who you will get. No one has any clue what Kerry will do once he gets elected. At least you know where you stand with "the Great Satan from Texas."

 

[hoorray]

I'm too much of a chicken to vote for someone "because he is not" someone else. Who knows what we would really be getting into, and traditionally, I've tended to believe that the devil we know is better than the one we don't. This year I am really struggling tho. I believe in voting, (when you are informed), but am having a hard time believing I should give my vote to either one of these candidates. I don't think they have earned it.

The only solice I have is that living in CA, our votes get watered down significantly by the shear number of people and the heavy democratic leanings of the state. If we split the electoral votes between the candidates based on their share of popular votes, I believe my vote would count much more. (I'm not trying to start a new debate on voting process, but I do believe our current system has outlived it's usefullness.)

 

[fire&ice]

Our vote does count. I saw the results of our Supervisor race. The guy I voted for literally won by 6 or so votes. My husband & I being two of them. Aside from the fact that he was the incumbent & I have no complaints, I voted for him because he always knocks on our door, introduces himself & gives us a pen! Not a very intellectual reason; but, I like a politician who speaks to the regular folk.

Though I think it is our civic duty to learn the candidates platform, I think it's elitest to say that one shouldn't vote if not informed. Informed by WHO? Fox news? The National Review? CNN? The Village Voice? The guy on the bus taking you to the voting precints? Negative ads?

You know the reason why I lean towards the "he's not Bush" candidate. All these things happened on G. Bush's watch. I'm not debating that it's his fault. But, I do take the stance that this guy is not lucky.

the whole debacle that was the Election
911
Antrax
War in Afganistan
Virtual Meltdown in the Stock Market
Enron,worldcom,etc.-loss of confidence in the sys.
Failing Economy
Exporting of jobs
Neo Conservatism a la Wolfolwich (sp?)
War in Iraq
Severe deficit spending
Scary mounting debt
Erosion of the Women's right to choose
And, Reality TV Shows

(some of which I admittedly watch)

Again, not blaming him. But, at a certain point, I've got to think, at the very least, this guy is unlucky.

BTW, I have not decided who I am voting for. But, in my mind, this is a valid reason to not vote for Bush. I've been with the Devil for 4 years. Things haven't been good.

I would have voted for a Gephart/Kerry ticket. But, I *hate* Edwards. Funny, I don't see how Kerry thinks he will have some influence in the South. NC feels deserted by this guy. Even my staunchest Demo friends feel betrayed by Edwards.

Wow, I'm feeling rather political today.

 

[Jennifer5973]

I am very confused and am trying to educate myself as best I can before voting.

One thing I am passionate about is voting itself-I always vote. It's not a cliche that many people died--and are dying right now--for the way of life we have, the cornertsone of which is the right to vote.

Maybe it's because i grew up on stories from my grandfathers--one of whom was in Europe in 1942 hanging from the belly of a plane in a glass ball as German fighters shot at him and his boyhood friends--and the other who was on a ship in the middle of the Pacific...But I am proud of this country and I believe you can be proud and at the same time, not blind to its flaws and the opportunity we have to make it better.

Someone at my office said to me she doesn't vote becasue "it doesn't matter." Well, if the aforementioned reason isn't enough for you to vote, read up on how the electoral college works and --case in point--the Florida situation from 4 years ago. Each vote DOES matter. Let's all get off our lazy keisters in November and vote.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/9/2004 11:28:16 PM Jennifer5973 wrote:

. Each vote DOES matter. Let's all get off our lazy keisters in November and vote.

----------------

I can't be more on the same page with you about that!

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 7/9/2004 11:15:44 AM fire&ice wrote:



Though I think it is our civic duty to learn the candidates platform, I think it's elitest to say that one shouldn't vote if not informed. Informed by WHO? Fox news? The National Review? CNN? The Village Voice? The guy on the bus taking you to the voting precints? Negative ads?

You know the reason why I lean towards the 'he's not Bush' candidate. All these things happened on G. Bush's watch. I'm not debating that it's his fault. But, I do take the stance that this guy is not lucky.

the whole debacle that was the Election
911
Antrax
War in Afganistan
Virtual Meltdown in the Stock Market
Enron,worldcom,etc.-loss of confidence in the sys.
Failing Economy
Exporting of jobs
Neo Conservatism a la Wolfolwich (sp?)
War in Iraq
Severe deficit spending
Scary mounting debt
Erosion of the Women's right to choose
And, Reality TV Shows

(some of which I admittedly watch)

Again, not blaming him. But, at a certain point, I've got to think, at the very least, this guy is unlucky.

BTW, I have not decided who I am voting for....

----------------

I think some of your points were out of Bush’s control and only about half could reasonably have an argument with and consider an election issue.

911 - 9/11 happened only 8 months after Bush took office.
Anthrax - Just a follow-up to 9/11. Considering nothing much happened perhaps Bush deserves some credit
War in Afghanistan – The Taliban were aiding and abetting Bin Laden and refused to hand him over.
Virtual Meltdown in the Stock Market – The stock market peaked in March 2000, 10 months before Bush took office
Enron, worldcom, etc.-loss of confidence in the sys. – Although I despise Enron, I really don’t think Bush had much to do with this, 8 months after his inauguration.
Failing Economy – The economy has been improving, but it again started to decline before Bush took office. A president only has some influence in the economy. However, the Dow is over 10,000 up from its low of 7400. I think Bush actually did a good job here.

Exporting of jobs – This is a fair point, but then again NAFTA did just exactly this as well
Neo Conservatism a la Wolfowich (sp?) – see below
War in Iraq – The debate of the year. I think Bush's reason to attack Iraq was to install a democracy in the Middle East in order to create stability in the region and that the benefits of the democracy will emanate across its borders to surrounding countries. This idea of forcefully exporting democracy to provide safety & stability to the US is essentially neo-conservatism. One will either agree with it or not and this is a valid point for election.
Severe deficit spending – This is true. According to today’s Wall Street Journal : “Overall spending has grown from 18.4% to 20.2% of gross domestic product (under Bush)” – This is a legitimate concern voting point.
Scary mounting debt – Similarly the Journal went on to say that “discretionary spending has grown 43% since President Clinton left office.” Also a voting point.
Erosion of the Women's right to choose – This is a historic liberal/ conservative issue. Some call the “right to choose,” women’s liberty, and some call it a euphemism for aborting an inconvenient pregnancy. Of course, a voting point.


Unfortunately Kerry will raise taxes and raise them a lot. We all know that “roll back the tax cuts” is just code for raising taxes. That and a $700 billion healthcare plan seems disastrous.


P.S. Good observation on the "informed by WHO" point.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/12/2004 4:58:57 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

----------------
On 7/9/2004 11:15:44 AM fire&ice wrote:



Neo Conservatism a la Wolfowich (sp?) – see below
War in Iraq – The debate of the year. I think Bush's reason to attack Iraq was to install a democracy in the Middle East in order to create stability in the region and that the benefits of the democracy will emanate across its borders to surrounding countries. This idea of forcefully exporting democracy to provide safety & stability to the US is essentially neo-conservatism. One will either agree with it or not and this is a valid point for election.
quote]


Yeah, but that's just it. The neo-conserv. philos. can be debated. But, the admin is still clinging to the WMD debate. A few years back many libs were talking about this neo-conservative policy. The conservs denied it. Then, Wolf does an entire piece in Time (?) about it - bringing it to the forefront & validating it (according to him). This in itself makes me wonder whose running the government in terms of policy. An Engima to me.

And, just to note....I didn't blame Bush for all of the mentioned things. Hubby & I have a funny debate all the time. Would you rather be lucky or good at the helm? I pick lucky all the time.

On an interesting note, the pundints all say that VP choice doesn't move the polls in a significant amount. We were at a party this Sat. Most voting age demographics were covered (parents, grandparent & college kids). All agreed that the VP choice was *very* important in their voting decision. An anomoly - or not? I can't fathom thinking the VP choice is *not* important. But then, I was an adult when Reagan was shot. The succession became very clear in the chaos that ensued. Anyone remember Alexander Haig?

 

[AGBF]

I think George W. Bush is a puppet who is not intelligent enough to do anything unless he is instructed to do so by his advisors, principally Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Karl Rove knows Bush's constituency and what it wants and he tries to advise "W" to take actions most likely to make that constituency happy without offending any other segments of his constituency.

I have not yet seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the infamous seven minutes after "W" learns of the attack on the World Trade Center, yet sits there posing for photos with school children to whom he is pretending to read a book. I believed, until I heard about that episode, that "W" really wanted to wage a war on terrorism. His affect, when he delivered his speech to Congress after the attacks, convinced me that he felt he had found a cause.

Of course, now we know what he did with that cause. We know (courtesy of the 9/11 Commission) that first, he didn't pay attention to intelligence about the attacks before they took place. We know that he is very friendly with many wealthy Saudi Arabians and that he helped the family of Osama bin Laden to leave the US (although NOT when all other air flights were grounded as was originally charged). We know that he not only attacked Afghanistan, which housed the Taliban (put into power by the US when it was fighting the Soviet Union), but also IRAQ. Why he attacked Iraq, one of only TWO secular Arab countries in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism, is something at which we can only guess. We DO know that Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, got some lucrative contracts there to rebuild Iraq...even before it was destroyed and without competitive bidding.

I could go on and on, but if one reads the papers one need not read about all this here on a diamond forum. I am disappointed that the level of discourse here is so uninformed, however. The people who read Pricescope are generally intelligent and well-read. If no one here is well-informed about Mr. Bush's record, I have little hope that the rest of the country is.

I always vote, as many of you do. However, like some of you, I do wonder what the use of voting is, if one remains totally uninformed.

Deborah

 

[kkeen15]

Wow, ABGF, we're brinking on a loss of civility here. I don't think anybody who's spoken up so far seems ignorant. From my perspective only, I am very informed, yet I don't put all my views on the table during discussions like this. There is no media outlet that I fully trust anyway, and getting heated in a discussion when the facts are debatable seems silly to me.

Anybody who follows American politics, and is an American, most likely has some strong feelings regarding this election. It seems that they generally lie in the following three groups: 1) Strongly favor Bush, 2) Strongly favor Kerry (or anybody who's not Bush), and 3) Feel confused and a little depressed over the choices and situation at hand. I'm one of the third party. I have participated in discussions, I read several online newspapers every day, but I still am not sure what I am going to do this November. What I feel strongest is that we need some serious change on a variety of fronts. However, I don't think Kerry is going to bring the changes that are needed. His platform (what is it again??

) is more about "This is what I need to do to get elected" than "These are the things we need to change to improve the lives of our people and our country's image."

I think I'll stop there for now...I'm about to start talking about "What our government REALLY needs!!" LOL

 

[quaeritur]

I am DEFINITELY voting. I take this right seriously. And I am DEFINITELY voting for Win... finally a choice I can live with!

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/24/2004 11:01:27 AM AGBF wrote:


I could go on and on, but if one reads the papers one need not read about all this here on a diamond forum. I am disappointed that the level of discourse here is so uninformed, however. The people who read Pricescope are generally intelligent and well-read. If no one here is well-informed about Mr. Bush's record, I have little hope that the rest of the country is.

Deborah----------------

Back to my point. Informed by who? Information from where?

And, while the media hypes the seven minutes of F 9/11, who knows what one would do given the situation presented. Regardless of what one did, it would be scrutinized to death.

 

[debi wexler]

Bush gets at least 5 votes from my family. Sure there are a lot of "if it's not Bush" fans out there --- who know what we would be putting in office. Given the circumstances and "against the odds" situation, Bush and his administration have dealt with these past four years, he's handle his job pretty well. At least the guy is the first one in office IMHO in a long time who is direct and action oriented. Seems like a good business manager to me.


Such a serious decision, but a lot of interesting opinions on this chat channel. Amazing how you can go from diamonds to politics all at Pricescope

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 7/25/2004 1:37:01 PM debi wexler wrote:



"Bush gets at least 5 votes from my family.
(snip)
Given the circumstances...Bush and and his administration have dealt with these past four years, he's handle his job pretty well. At least the guy is the first one in office IMHO in a long time who is direct and action oriented."


To you and to fireandice I say:

Have you read the synopsis of the bipartisan 9/11 commission (50% Republican and 50% Democratic and chaired by former Republican Governor Thomas H. Kean)?

To fireandice I say: THAT's a source you can trust regardless of your political leanings. It is 567 pages including 119 pages of footnotes and was UNANIMOUSLY endorsed by the 5 republicans and 5 Democrats on the commission. An educated person must choose what to believe, but that does not mean that NOTHING is believable, that there is NO truth! This report is as good as it gets!

To you, Debi, I say, do you know how soon before the September 11 attacks and HOW SPECIFICALLY Mr. Bush was warned that they were coming? He wasn't very "action-oriented" after he was told on August 6, 2001 that an attack was imminent. Condoleeza Rice informed the commission of that briefing and the paper from which Mr. Bush was briefed on August 6 was entitled,"Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S", a revelation that brought gasps in the hearing room.

I think it is more accurate to say that Mr. Bush is good at posturing and acting as if he is taking meaningful action than he is in taking MEANINGFUL action.

For example, as cited above, before the 9/11 attacks he was warned and yet he did nothing. After the attacks, besides attacking Afghanistan (which at least had SOME connection to 9/11 since the Taliban in Afghanistan supported Osama bin Laden) he attacked Iraq with great flourish!!! Good Lord! Iraq was as different from the Taliban as chalk from cheese! It was madness! But I concede that American citizens have a right to vote for a man who takes nutty action if what floats their boat is seeing action-any action. I hope YOU will concede that I have the right to wish that such voters would be content to watch action TV, instead. The people on action TV shows don't really die .

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Oh...and one more thing: the commission found that Saudi nationals, including the family of Osama bin Laden were helped by the Bush administration to leave the US directly after 9/11. It did NOT find that Mr. Bush had approved this personally, but his counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke did approve it. You do recall that Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who attacked the US were Saudi Arabian, right? Not Iraqi? Not from Afghanistan?

 

[fire&ice]

Have you read the synopsis of the bipartisan 9/11 commission (50% Republican and 50% Democratic and chaired by former Republican Governor Thomas H. Kean)?

To fireandice I say: THAT's a source you can trust regardless of your political leanings.
----------------

It's Fire&Ice.

And, that's your comprehension of a small part of the document.

 

[Icicles]

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 7/25/2004 3:51:08 PM fire&ice wrote:

Have you read the synopsis of the bipartisan 9/11 commission (50% Republican and 50% Democratic and chaired by former Republican Governor Thomas H. Kean)?

To fireandice I say: THAT's a source you can trust regardless of your political leanings.
----------------

It's Fire&Ice.

And, that's your comprehension of a small part of the document.
----------------

Are you simply correcting my spelling of your nickname here, Fire&Ice, or do you have another point as well? If you do, I do not know what it is. Please elucidate.

Deborah

 

[doxiemom]

"Are you going to VOTE??" - Yes

"Or rather, who are you voting for?" - Kerry

 

[fire&ice]

Oh for Pete's sake. I'm *still* having problems quoting you. Your quotes must be quite illusive as I seem to have this problem more with your posts.

Basically, I was ribbing you. I'm fire&ice not fireandice. I wondered about your comprehension of the 9/11 report.

That said, come on - a document generated in Washington as the "source". It's political or they wouldn't be doing what they do best.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 7/25/2004 6:14:37 PM fire&ice wrote:

Oh for Pete's sake. I'm *still* having problems quoting you. Your quotes must be quite illusive as I seem to have this problem more with your posts.

Basically, I was ribbing you. I'm fire&ice not fireandice. I wondered about your comprehension of the 9/11 report.

That said, come on - a document generated in Washington as the 'source'. It's political or they wouldn't be doing what they do best.

----------------

Well...as long as I'm causing you problems, I am happy .

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/26/2004 11:54:05 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 7/25/2004 6:14:37 PM fire&ice wrote: <hr ------

Well...as long as I'm causing you problems, I am happy .

Deb
----------------