NationStates Jolt Archive

Just before the server change, somebody posted a topic asking why George Bush should be re-elected. Now it's our turn.

Why, on his own merit, does Kerry deserve to be elected?

Now, I don't want this to be turned into yet another Burning Bush topic. I want to hear why Kerry is qualified, not why you hate his opponent. I have posted a similar topic in the past, and the question was sidestepped. Please explain this time.

The reason I ask is because I think it's a bad idea to put somebody in the Oval Office just to get somebody else out. That's why LBJ was replaced with Nixon, and look where that got us. By "For Bush" or "For Kerry", I mean that you are voting for them because you think they are more qualified, not because you dislike their opponent.

Please note that we can see who voted for who. I would appreciate explainations for each vote.

Agreed. And look at the Germans, who were so desperate for change that they elected Hitler, who ended up being a genocidal monster as well as a bona fide @$$hole, as everyone already knows. Myself, I'm personally voting for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Yeah, I know third party candidates never stand a chance in hell, but he's entirely conservative (not a pseudo-conservative liberal like Bush), genuinely patriotic, and believes in the strict interpretation of the constitution (there hasn't been a President that's respected the constitution for many, many, many, many, many decades; the most recent one that even remotely followed the constitution is Coolidge). Kerry is just an @$$hole. Visit www.hanoijohnkerry.org (or it might be .com, I'm not sure), and read for yourselves. Then, check out the many links to other anti-Kerry websites they have there. You'll find that the extremely vast majority of vets hate Kerry's guts. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush, but I wouldn't vote for Kerry if someone put a gun to my head.

Let me say this for starters--it's unfair to ask people to why they would vote for a person without at least taking the incumbent into account, assuming the incumbent is running. In 2000, there was no voting against anyone, but in 2004, we're faced with either an acceptance or a rejection of the current administration. That's the way the electorate sees it, and has seen it as long as we've been holding elections.

But to the point--why am I voting for Kerry? Kerry has shown that he understands the need to work with the other nations of the world on matters of security, especially in the war on al Qaeda.

Kerry has plans to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and use that money to reduce the federal deficit and fund a health care system that will protect uninsured people from catastrophic illnesses. It's not single-payer, but it's a start.

Kerry will return to the time-honored policy of letting government scientists do their research without being pressured to hide conclusions that disagree with party ideology.

Kerry has long been enviro-friendly and there's no reason to believe he'll change once he's elected president.

Kerry will appoint judges and potentially Supreme Court justices that interpret the Constitution as a living document and that don't allow religious opinion to color their judicial rulings.

But more than just Kerry as President, I think that the Democrats ought to be able to win back at least one House of Congress to help make a lot of his plans come to fruition. The Republicans have had full control of Congress and the executive for most of the last 4 years, and look at the shape we're in. Let the Democrats have a shot at it.

Just before the server change, somebody posted a topic asking why George Bush should be re-elected. Now it's our turn.

Why, on his own merit, does Kerry deserve to be elected?

Now, I don't want this to be turned into yet another Burning Bush topic. I want to hear why Kerry is qualified, not why you hate his opponent. I have posted a similar topic in the past, and the question was sidestepped. Please explain this time.

The reason I ask is because I think it's a bad idea to put somebody in the Oval Office just to get somebody else out. That's why LBJ was replaced with Nixon, and look where that got us. By "For Bush" or "For Kerry", I mean that you are voting for them because you think they are more qualified, not because you dislike their opponent.

Please note that we can see who voted for who. I would appreciate explainations for each vote.

You brought this same poll forward on the old server and it appears that it will have the same result as ALL your other polls concerning Bush. I believe you are a glutton for punishment?

Kerry will win.

Bush will seek the executioner's job in Texas.

I hate how people say "let ....... have a shot at it" or "it's ........'s turn now" when referring to elections. Its not taking turns on the swings in the playground....

OOC: Ohhh yeah! It shows who votes on this forum! I like this feature.

You brought this same poll forward on the old server and it appears that it will have the same result as ALL your other polls concerning Bush. I believe you are a glutton for punishment?

Kerry will win.

Bush will seek the executioner's job in Texas.

And..your answer to the question this thread is asking is?

I've already decided not to vote for Bush.

I'm still on the fence about Kerry. I'm really not sure I trust him. Edwards as veep helps a little.

I like Nader. But after 2000, I'm a little gunshy about voting third party. Which is sad since I'm one of the biggest opponents of the two-party system.

Im voting for Kerry, because I believe this country has gotten to a point where there are grave misdeeds being done in America's name.
The current President has started an illegal war, for monetary profit, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and has done business with some of the very worst leaders in the world.
New leadership is the only thing that can possibly even start a change for the better.
Kerry couldn't possibly be any worse than the man in office right now.
What would he do, start an illegal war and murder tens of thousands of innocent people for his own monetary gain?


Oh..wait.....Bush has already done that.

Tax cuts back the working class.
Stem -Cell research.
Economic improvement.
Higher standards of conduct.
Better E.P.A standards.
Safer place to live.

I think those are pretty good reasons.

And..your answer to the question this thread is asking is?
1. I believe Kerry will mend the broken fences that George (either you are with us or against us) Bush destroyed.

2. I believe that Kerry will be fiscally more responsible, especially by cutting back "tax cuts" to the wealthiest members of society. The "trickle down" economics that Bush instituted is failing miserably.

3. I believe that Kerry will throw away Bush's "hit list". Bush has already whacked one country too many.

4. Kerry will not hide behind a false facade of religious bigotry, such as Bush has done. Being religious is one thing, but trying to impress others about an undying passion to impart "democracy" to the Iraqis' while 3 million more Americans fall into the hands of poverty is totally hypocritical.

5. Kerry will do more for the environment. Bush could care less.

6. Kerry will do more for US veterans, because he is one. Bush is a wannabe. You won't see Kerry flying onto the deck of some aircraft carrier stating "mission accomplished", long before the war is over.

7. I see Kerry as a strong candidate to end or at least alleviate the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Unfortunately, Bush's "road map for peace" took a detour through Iraq and has cost Bush all credbility in the Arab world.

Enough or would you like more?

1. I believe Kerry will mend the broken fences that George (either you are with us or against us) Bush destroyed.

2. I believe that Kerry will be fiscally more responsible, especially by cutting back "tax cuts" to the wealthiest members of society. The "trickle down" economics that Bush instituted is failing miserably.

3. I believe that Kerry will throw away Bush's "hit list". Bush has already whacked one country too many.

4. Kerry will not hide behind a false facade of religious bigotry, such as Bush has done. Being religious is one thing, but trying to impress others about an undying passion to impart "democracy" to the Iraqis' while 3 million more Americans fall into the hands of poverty is totally hypocritical.

5. Kerry will do more for the environment. Bush could care less.

6. Kerry will do more for US veterans, because he is one. Bush is a wannabe. You won't see Kerry flying onto the deck of some aircraft carrier stating "mission accomplished", long before the war is over.

7. I see Kerry as a strong candidate to end or at least alleviate the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Unfortunately, Bush's "road map for peace" took a detour through Iraq and has cost Bush all credbility in the Arab world.

Enough or would you like more?

Thank you, all I wanted was you to answer the question asked instead of posting rubbish.

I think the biggest is that Kerry will repair the damage done to America's reputation. When your allies don't support you, you should realize it's probably YOUR problem, not the allies.

Tied in with this is the ability for Kerry to speak intelligently. Granted, he gets a bit windy, but I'd rather have a president that is a bit over my head than one I can't understand because he just plain doesn't make sense.

Also, I have to admire (after listening to Bush) Kerry's ability to speak in a normal cadence. Listening to Bush, he pauses so much you're never quite sure where his sentences are going.

Policy wise, I'm a democrat, so I won't bother with that.

I am mainly voting for Kerry to vote against Bush, but I mostly like Kerry's policies. He was hardly my first choice for the Dems' nominee (but then again, Dennis Kucinich was, and we all know how much chance he had), but his foreign policy looks far more sound than Bush's, and rolling back the tax cuts is a pretty good idea. The deficit has to be cleaned up somehow.

Unfortunately, I don't see him winning. Bush will win by about two dozen electoral votes, and I shudder to think what direction we're going in over the next four years. At best, Congress will handcuff him and he won't get anything done. At worst, he will either ignore the Constitution, act above the Constitution, or void the Constitution, and the next thing we know, Bush will become a dictator. The truth will probably be in between, though Congress may handcuff him, since even if he does get re-elected, the people may be pretty sick of the Republican Congress.

Have some faith Ice Hockey Players. I look at it this way--George W. Bush got as many votes as he was ever going to get in 2000, and he's done nothing but alienate moderates ever since. A few people will vote for Bush because they're afraid, but more people will vote against him because they're angry.

I really don't care who gets elected. It doesn't really fix the root problem. No matter who you elect, there is still a government and capitalism. I see no reason to believe that Kerry will somehow be a huge improvement over Bush. Fundamentally, they are the same. They simply disagree on details like whether abortion is immoral.

I don't see how that is so great of a difference. Compared to anarchists, they are remarkably similar. Anarcho-communists and mutualists rarely argue over who is better and they disagree on issues like whether markets and money themselves are undesirable. Don't tell me that Bush and Kerry are incredibly different.

Mark Steyn's take on why Bush will win. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-07-17&id=4815) An interesting read throughout, but I'll highlight his electoral analysis.
As I said before and after the 2000 election, the Democrats’ biggest problem is their lack of appeal to white rural males. That’s why Al Gore isn’t President. He lost hitherto Dem states like West Virginia, Bill Clinton’s Arkansas and his own Tennessee. Do you reckon a Botoxicated Brahmin from Massachusetts with some pretty-boy ambulance-chaser is going to reverse Gore’s fortunes? I don’t. The Michael Moorification of the Democratic party boosts their numbers where they don’t need any more support — Boston, New York, plus Berkeley and a few other crazy college towns. But it doesn’t do anything for them in states where they could use a bump.

So I’d say West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee are staying in the Bush column. The 2000 census brought about, yet again, a further draining of electoral muscle from the Democrat north-east to the Republican south and west. This means that even if Bush won only the states he won last time round, instead of a squeaker, he’d beat Kerry by 278 electoral college votes to 260. I think it will be a little bigger than that. With the exception of Florida, the Bush bloc of states is pretty much secure. The battlegrounds this year are all Gore states — Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin. At the minimum I’d look to Bush to peel away a couple of those from Kerry — most likely some twosome out of Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin — and hold on to Florida. That would give Bush 290–295 electoral college votes over Kerry’s 243–248. If the Massachusetts senator is on TV too often and his insufferable pomposity becomes impossible to hide, the President may pick up three or four more states — plus, under the Pine Tree State’s goofy split-take rules, half of Maine’s electoral votes, too.

This is a perfect example of how perspective makes a difference. To Letila, there's no significant difference between Kerry and Bush because his gripe has to do with a much larger issue--the economic system we operate under--and anyone who buys into that system is equivalent in his eyes.

Now if you accept that capitalism is the economic system we're operating under and will be operating under for the foreseeable future, then you can see very real and substantive differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry. That's the perspective of someone inside the system as opposed to being outside it.

I really don't care who gets elected. It doesn't really fix the root problem. No matter who you elect, there is still a government and capitalism. I see no reason to believe that Kerry will somehow be a huge improvement over Bush. Fundamentally, they are the same. They simply disagree on details like whether abortion is immoral.

I don't see how that is so great of a difference. Compared to anarchists, they are remarkably similar. Anarcho-communists and mutualists rarely argue over who is better and they disagree on issues like whether markets and money themselves are undesirable. Don't tell me that Bush and Kerry are incredibly different.

Hey Stirner, let me make this point as far as Steyn's prediction is concerned.
Let me start with this electoral map from 2000:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/graphics/statesfinal.gif
Now Steyn's prediction is based on the idea that Bush will hold on to all the states he won in 2000, but a number of those states are firmly toss-ups right now, namely Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Louisiana and Arkansas. Some are more tossup than others--the last three are less likely than the first three for example--but all those states went Bush in 2000 (I'm not going to get into the Florida debate right now), and they're nowhere near solid for either candidate. Bush has at least as much work cut out for him as Kerry, if not more, simply because history shows that in a tight race, undecided voters tend to break for the challenger over the incumbent by about 3 to 1.

It's my birthday, I'm tired, and I don;t usually discuss politics on the forums.

But you asked, and since the polls have the blackmail option (which I did not notice, but now that I see it I intend to boycott all polls), I'll say basically what I say on IRC in fewer words (well, fewer words than I've had in all of those conversations):

If I could vote, I'd vote for Nader.

Kerry stabbed my state in the back, Bush stabbed my country in the back.
Kerry since mid 2002 took an attitude that he desserves to be president. That's egotism if I ever saw it.
The Democrats chose Kerry, a horrible candidate (albeit, most of the field was horrible, but that's past) on the grounds that the people would vote for "anybody but Bush". That's arrogance if I ever saw it.
The choice today is between, very bad and horrible. I see no reason to choose either.
Choosing Kerry, isn't progress, it's simply slower regress.
As I said, Kerry stabbed my state in the back, but he's still our fortunate son. Kerry'll win in MA, but I'd like that margin to be as slim as possible.
Kerry doesn't deserve the presidency any more than Bush, I see no reaon why either of them should get votes.
"Lesser evil" is still evil.
As far as I'm concerned, a votes only wasted if you don't support who you're voting for.

I don't care what people say about, Nader (both parties detest him far more utterly than they dislike each other, not that that's suprising if you think about it), he has more honor in the nail on his pinky than all of the major party bigwigs have between them. He's not perfect, but he's not imperfection at its finest as with most politician these days.

Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke