2004 Presidential Election

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:40 pm

Bush? Kerry? Nader? None of the above?

I must say I cannot vote for Bush, but I wish I could confidently vote for someone. I feel an incumbent president has to win re-election based on what he's done. Sitting here, I can't think of any big accomplishments he's had. Someone please fill me in, because I think he'll probably win and I just want to at least be able to tell myself his administration won't make things worse than they already are.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:32 am

I voted for Nader last time, because this country is so frigging corrupt. I'll vote for Kerry this time, even though King George II will get MT's electoral votes anyway. I don't know presidential history enough to clearly call dubya the worst president of all time, but he's clearly in the top 5.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:26 pm

iaafan: I thought you might have touched off a powder keg with this one, but so far, people are keeping their cards close to their chest.

I have to go with Kerry. I would go along philosophical lines and vote for the token Libertarian, but they always seem to end up being really, really weird.

In 2000, I didn't like either Gore or Bush, but I saw Bush as the less partisan of the 2 at the time, and to me, that suggested that he was the most moderate and the one who could do the least damage. Okay, okay. Maybe I was wrong.

Especially in terms of "moral" issues (where the right wing suggest that big government is bad, unless it is imposing their religion on you and defining what is and is not allowable between consenting adults), I have completely lost faith in Bush. His stance on stem cell research and his divisive display regarding the constitutional amendment were too much for me to take.

Economically, I don't blame Bush (except for the excessive government spending), and I'm not a fan of Kerry's policies, but Kerry won't be able to implement his populist reforms (and I don't think he even really wants to). If the Republicans still hold both houses of Congress, we need a Democrat in the White House. Gridlock is good -- it keeps either side from doing the stupid crap that the hardcores of each party want to do. I never give credit or place blame on the President for the current economy. The economy is way too complicated and cyclical to assume that the current policies are having that much of an impact.

Iraq... yeah, that could have gone a little better. I really thought we were just talking loudly and carrying a really big stick leading up to the invasion, and I was surprised when we actually went in. I was holding out hope that they knew what they were doing. It just hasn't turned out all that well. The part that really bothers me is when talking heads (and even some official types) suggest that Iraq was about terrorists. It wasn't. It was about Saddam. He was a bad guy, and it's good that he's out, but we can't gloss over some of our shortcomings by saying that it was part of the war on terrorism. It just doesn't make sense. If we are going to invade countries for terrorism based on the tenuous links we claimed to have found between Iraq and terrorists, we are going to be very busy. We'll probably have to invade Idaho as well, which could be awkward.

So, all in all, I guess it's Kerry for me. This will be my first time not voting Republican for President.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:47 pm

That's funny BAC becouse I'm voting Bush President but Demo for Montana. A first time split for myself. Bush why. No good reason. I just think a change now with this terror thing going on would be bad. Sending a wrong signal and all to the world terrorist.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:16 pm

BAC - I agree with most of your post. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but I don't trust Kerry's experience and decision-making during this very critical time in the international landscape. I honestly think Bush is doing his best to make our country a safer place to live, and while not flawless, I think he is heading in the right direction.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:18 pm

jagur: That's interesting. Some of my buddies at work and I have talked about that point of view as well, although nobody I had previously talked to was following it all the way to fruition. I can see your point of view on that, especially in light of Spain's elections. Unfortunately, I think Bush is also using that idea as a campaign point, which is dangerous/disingenuous as well.

When it comes down to it, should we let terrorists dictate who we vote for, or should we vote for who we think is best for the job? I guess you could use that argument for either candidate.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:35 pm

Just a couple of rich white guys that haven't earned a dime.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:01 pm

The poll I give most credence to, Rassmussen, has it back in a dead heat at 47.3-all.

Bush was up 49-45 after convention. I don't trust the Newsweek or other similar polls and they had Bush up by 7-8 points I believe. They have Bush up 213-175 in electorals, but aren't giving NJ and Mich to Kerry as they consider a 4-pt lead a swing state. So it is probably closer to 213-207.

Someone mentioned that they were sticking with Bush because it isn't good to change during war (something to that affect). There was report done that cited the psychology around that and how Argentina's prez had invaded the Falklands after he was down in the polls. His consequent invasion led to a swing in the vote and he won re-election. The author noted similarities to Bush's campaing and this event in Argentina. I'm doing the report no justice with vague recollection, but I think you get my point here.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:21 pm

1aa now you sound like Moore. "They let the plains plow into the trade centers." If anything Iraq has hurt Bush in my thoughts. I think he saw a chance to take out Saddam and took it. I agree with BAC, not related to terrorist but a bad dude that deserved to go. I just wish we got some cheap gas for all the waste that is going on. 1000 dead and not one a senator's son.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:35 pm

There are a lot of areas where our congress and administration are now totally corrupt: environment, health care, media regulation, the defense "Biz", but even beyond that, I see no way that we are safer. We have done little to help Afghanistan, which is in about the same mess as last time we "helped" them. Pakistan and North Korea are far more important than Iraq, in the big scheme. Iraq was not threat at all. There was no credible evidence before we invaded them that they were a threat and there is none now. It was a diversion. Our country is vastly less respected now, and we may see every leader of the "coalition of the willing" defeated at home; their people (Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Japan . . . ) don't trust the US at all now. Osama couldn't have asked for a better script to motivate his sympathizers than Wolfy's naive nonsense.

Terrorism isn't a "war" that can be won militarily, by invading countries. It's about non-glamourous police work and international cooperation. We sure won't get Osama with more expensive planes and missiles, but some contractors will get very rich. What's needed is to protect that chemical tank down the street that anybody can walk up to and evacuate a million people. We need to convince the Islamic world that our invasion was not another "Crusade", which will take generations. Fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or capitalistic, doesn't make good government; it can only disenfranchise the majority.

Democracy doesn't have much to do with our system of legislating for the highest bidder in the lobbying game. Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind, Iraqi Freedom . . . good Madison Avenue names, but they are nothing but smokescreens for their real intents Just propaganda for purchased legislation.

I like BAC's point about gridlock preventing bad policies from being enacted; there's a grain of truth to that.

What about the deficit? How many countries can we afford to invade, convert their citizens into anti-american zealots and abandon, while the rest of the world's major countries concentrate on education and take all of the new jobs. The people in Washington now are clueless and living in the 19th Century and making all of History's mistakes over again. Good politics and bad government. Isn't it great to make a decision and stick with it, right or wrong?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:41 pm

Jagur:
Not that I disagree with you, but if Iraq hurt Bush, then someone better tell him that. He's walking around with his chest pumped out about being the 'war prez' and that's (9/11, terrorist, Iraq War II) the focus of his campaign. He, and his followers, think 9/11 and Iraq are his shining moments.

Iraq should be hurting Bush. I'm not so sure that it is.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:50 pm

In my mind it has hurt Bush, 1AA in my mind. A strange and dangerous place my mind. I agree, for the general election Iraq is helping.

soccertodd · Post by **soccertodd** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:43 am

Okay, I had to chime in on this one. For one, I have recently moved out of good ol' Republican Montana to Portland, OR and I'll soon be moving to Seattle which are consequently two of the more liberal cities in America. I'm not sure that any of that really matters but just some background.

I am voting for George Bush. Why...because I think he has done an excellent job handling a very difficult situation. I am appalled that people seem to have forgotten what happened on September 11th. I guess I don't get over things as quickly as everyone else because I am still pissed off about it. People keep suggesting that we need to work to try and convince the Muslim extremists that there is a different way of doing things. These people want to reason with the same lunatics who blow themselves up on a nearly daily basis and take an entire school hostage on the first day. These jerks are willing to shoot children to try and make their point. Don't get me wrong, I am not condemning all Muslims because it is a minority that are doing these horrible things. I do, however, think that this minority needs to be eliminated. The only thing these extremists want is Americans to die. The only way to stop them from taking more innocent life is to not give them the chance to hurt us again the way they did on September 11th.

At this point, I don't think I'm going to convince anyone that was going to vote for Kerry to change their vote but I do suggest that you think back to September 11th and how you felt that day. I do not think Kerry will be aggressive in his pursuit of terrorists and I personally want someone who will.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:10 am

[quote="soccertodd"]Okay, I had to chime in on this one. For one, I have recently moved out of good ol' Republican Montana to Portland, OR and I'll soon be moving to Seattle which are consequently two of the more liberal cities in America. I'm not sure that any of that really matters but just some background.

I am voting for George Bush. Why...because I think he has done an excellent job handling a very difficult situation. I am appalled that people seem to have forgotten what happened on September 11th. I guess I don't get over things as quickly as everyone else because I am still pissed off about it. People keep suggesting that we need to work to try and convince the Muslim extremists that there is a different way of doing things. These people want to reason with the same lunatics who blow themselves up on a nearly daily basis and take an entire school hostage on the first day. These jerks are willing to shoot children to try and make their point. Don't get me wrong, I am not condemning all Muslims because it is a minority that are doing these horrible things. I do, however, think that this minority needs to be eliminated. The only thing these extremists want is Americans to die. The only way to stop them from taking more innocent life is to not give them the chance to hurt us again the way they did on September 11th.

At this point, I don't think I'm going to convince anyone that was going to vote for Kerry to change their vote but I do suggest that you think back to September 11th and how you felt that day. I do not think Kerry will be aggressive in his pursuit of terrorists and I personally want someone who will.[/quote]

Soccertodd: Before I start I want you to know what I have to say isn't an attack on you or your beliefs. I'm honestly just looking for some clarification on your reasoning. 1) What has Bush done specifically that was excellent in handling a very difficult situation? What did he do that any president wouldn't have done? 2) Why does it seem to you that people have forgotten 9/11? 3) Where are you hearing these suggestions that Muslim extremists need to be convinced of doing things a different way? Has there been much sucess in the current approach? 4) What do you mean when you say this minority needs to be eliminated? 5) Why don't you think Kerry will be aggressive in his pursuit of terrorists?

When I reflect back on 9/11 I remember thinking, 'this is going down and this guy Bush is president.' I felt scared with him being in the White House and as it turned out I had good reason to be. I won't vote for Bush, because, among other things, I think his actions have made it more likely that we have another 9/11.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:30 am

Somehow people seem to forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Which might be why the 9/11 survivors families overwhelmingly oppose the war, which was simply a diversion from the efforts to control terrorism.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 am

soccertodd wrote:Okay, I had to chime in on this one. For one, I have recently moved out of good ol' Republican Montana to Portland, OR and I'll soon be moving to Seattle which are consequently two of the more liberal cities in America. I'm not sure that any of that really matters but just some background.

I am voting for George Bush. Why...because I think he has done an excellent job handling a very difficult situation. I am appalled that people seem to have forgotten what happened on September 11th. I guess I don't get over things as quickly as everyone else because I am still pissed off about it. People keep suggesting that we need to work to try and convince the Muslim extremists that there is a different way of doing things. These people want to reason with the same lunatics who blow themselves up on a nearly daily basis and take an entire school hostage on the first day. These jerks are willing to shoot children to try and make their point. Don't get me wrong, I am not condemning all Muslims because it is a minority that are doing these horrible things. I do, however, think that this minority needs to be eliminated. The only thing these extremists want is Americans to die. The only way to stop them from taking more innocent life is to not give them the chance to hurt us again the way they did on September 11th.

At this point, I don't think I'm going to convince anyone that was going to vote for Kerry to change their vote but I do suggest that you think back to September 11th and how you felt that day. I do not think Kerry will be aggressive in his pursuit of terrorists and I personally want someone who will.

I can assure you that I haven't forgotten about 9-11. In fact, I was at ground zero a couple weeks after it happened, comforting a close friend whose fiance was killed in the attack. That's not a memory that is going to fade quickly.

That being said, the fact that 9-11 happened isn't justification for me to vote for Bush. I don't think any President is going to take the threats of terrorism lightly. In fact, if anything, the Bush administration didn't seem all that concerned about the threat prior to the attack, either.

I'm sure we are doing all we can around the world to slow down this threat, and I'm sure that will continue. At the same time, our activity in Iraq has yet to do anything to show that it has helped us out. If, in 20 years, Iraq is a shining beacon of capitalism and democracy in the region, and as a result all Islamic fundamentalists have lost their taste for insanity and murder, then I will be very happy that we went in. Time will tell. However, I have no reason to believe that such a situation is any more likely to occur with Bush in office going forward than Kerry.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:39 am

shining beacon of capitalism. & Cheap Oil. Sorry, I just couldn't let it pass.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:50 am

jagur1 wrote:shining beacon of capitalism. & Cheap Oil. Sorry, I just couldn't let it pass.

Well, hopefully we will have figured out a way to survive without imported crude oil by then. (Of course, if that did happen, then we could completely ignore the Middle East forever) That's another thing that Kerry at least gives a lot more lip service to than Bush, which I don't understand. With the public perception that Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies, you would think he would at least come out with lots of bold statements about alternative fuels research just for appearance sake.

WolfPtCat · Post by **WolfPtCat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:31 pm

I am torn on these 3 issues:
Healthcare: I think the system is nearly unfixable. Doctors cannot afford malpractice insurance. Insurance companies dictate where customers can go. I recently caught a charter flight from Steamboat Springs CO to Anaconda for under $2000, my grandfather needed a medical flight from Wolf Point to Billings and was charged $30,000. MedicAid then picked up the tab. I'm starting to think that Canada might have the right idea. Edge-Kerry

Personal Freedoms: I think the Patriot Act is a step in a dangerous direction. Maybe I grew up too close to the Freemen, but I don't like Big Brother watching me. Don't give me that "If you don't have anything to hide....." argument. That is BS. Edge-Kerry

Abortion: This one is a deal-breaker. I cannot bring myself to back anyone who does not stand up for babies. To me, abortion is nothing more than adults murdering babies for convenience. Edge-Bush

If anyone can convince me to overlook Kerry's stand on abortion, I will consider changing my vote.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:48 pm

Here's an attempt -- Kerry will (I assume) support contraception programs at home and worldwide, which reduce the demand for abortions. Bush will continue to push abstinence only programs, which tend to ignore reality in favor of the appearance of morality.

Besides, regardless of who is President, Roe v. Wade isn't going away. Even if it did, most states would still keep it legal based on voter preferences. It would just result in a lot of roadtrips from conservative states to more liberal states.

2004 Presidential Election

2004 Presidential Election

Issues??