This Kerry is a waffler and Bush is steadfast crap is getting old. First because it's just a lame way to attack any candidate if you can't cite specifics, which no one has done to date for Kerry. Second, and most important, it's simply not true, particularly with regard to Iraq, whereas the Bush team has practically screwed themselves into the ground pre- and post 9/11. If you want to actually understand how the two candidates and their running mates differ read the following articles.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

So true.. Don't take the media's word for it, educate yourself!

At least this guy is hitting them both..

http://indieish.com/category/features/postcards-from-the-campaign-trail/

I think someone else posted it further down but, it bears repeating.

From the site above.. these just keep getting better.

Cheney/Edwards CSPAN prayer meeting video is false, says fox news.

...From Fox news ?

I wouldnt trust them to report whether the sun's up, without beforehand reading the "day's message to push" from RUpert Murdoch.

Case in point: Every time they show Kerry, he's looking slovenly. Every time they show Bush, he's looking grand and presedential. It's intentional.... it's NOT the way those two people look, on average. Hell, I've known 10-year-olds with better brains than Bush's.

So you want people to read a Seattle and a San Francisco newspaper writing about political candidates for an unbiased, factual article? Is this some sort of joke?

hehe, i was thinking the same thing.

All the proof of Kerry's waffling can be found at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com ... I'll believe an "analysis piece" from sfgate as soon as you concede that "rush is right". :)

If you want to quote a Seattle newspaper, at least let it be the Seattle Times. The PI is a bunch of garbage written to appeal to the average left-wing idiot Seattle resident who wants their news to be what they want to hear, not what the truth is.

So basically, what Fox News is for right wing viewers?

Did you hear the last rumour about adjustable beds and some politicians? Well, you should read about it... very interesting.

I was all set to vote for Kerry until his speech at the Nat'l Convention. You know the one where he said we would increase military spending, increase health care spending, shore up social security and balanace the budget.

It was then that I really saw Kerry the hopeless politician for the first time.

After 6 weeks of being disconsolate I think I'm back to voting for Kerry again.

Thanks KH4K for providing this forum

I feel the same way, after reading the text of an anti-Bush speech by Al Gore, quoted in full on Bruce Springsteen's website.

I read through the speech and said to myself "WHat the... ?! Al Gore isn't calling Bush's bluff on any of the hard questions ! No 'why war in Iraq ?' No "attacking civil liberties'. No '$7,000 worth of debt added to each citizen's life'. No 'paranoid about terrorism, yet INCREASING the risk of terrorism.'"

It was really disheartening. But... the nation's a pendulum. Once it starts swinging AWAY from Bush, I expect the media will start being a bit more fair and balanced on issues & investivative reporting, and we'll see the democrats stop hiding behind pseudo-Republican platforms.

I, for one, am a disaffected conservative, if not a disaffected republican.

What happened to fiscal discipline? What happened to no more nation building? What happened to compassion?

Ah well, sigh, if a vote for Kerry is what it takes to have any hope of bringing deficits back under control and having a reasonable energy policy, I guess that's what I'll have to do. But I won't like it!

You're dead on correct..

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough almost have integrity but not quite.. They moan the drunken sailor spending in DC without acknowledging that the Republicans control everything.. house, senate, president , supreme court etc..
and then try to say it's okay to keep this titanic sailing because of "judges",....even wing nut scalia himself yesterday said gay marriage and abortion are for congress not the courts..

the Fiscal disaster belongs completely at the Republican doorstep and George Orwell Bush (freedom is slavery etc.. if you caught that joke).

Having Kerry surrounded by all the drunken Republicans in the Congress will bring back fiscal discipline and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I agree comletely. I was a Bush 41 delegate and a strong McCain supporter. Kerry sucks, but I'm casting an institutional vote for gridlock. Kerry will veto an extension of Bush's tax cuts and Republicans will filibuster his programs. Result: fiscal discipline.

AMEN!

Our country works best when 2/3 of the congress has to agree on something.

GRIDLOCK = FISCAL DISCIPLINE

Yeah!

Two Desperately Needed Measures:
1] Constitutional Amandment banning deficit spending
2] Constitutional Amandment holding the registered voters for a president personnally liable for any malfeasance commtied by that President.
If you vote for bad expenditure, you'll pay for it...

What happened? Are you high, or just spending too much time in the vault counting your money?

9-11 happened...perhaps you were out of town, but it was a big deal for some of us.

Some think Kerry has a better policy approach, others favor Bush's distinctly different strategy. But get with the program Moneybags: nothing else matters if you're dead.

When was there an attack before 9-11, when has there been an attack after 9-11. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then getting killed by terrorists. What is Bush's next move. Wage war on lightning?

Wouldn't it be ironic if you were at the center of the next ground zero?

Oh the humanity

That was the stupidest argument I've ever heard. So you're saying that because the odds of one event are comparable to another, that those event are therefore the same? Get a friggin clue, dude.

The argument about lightning is valid.
Try to think with your head, not with some FOX-fed adrenalin rush.

Terrorism against Americans is simply such a statistically SMALL number that it's a NEGLIGIBLE number...except that it provided a dark, dramatic backdrop for Bush, so he could chip away at the "land of the free and home of the brave". Dude.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would trade a little bit of liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."

So strap on your balls, and realize that there's no REASON to be afraid of terrorism, just as there's no reason to be afraid of lightning. And it's most certainly no reason to be trading in freedoms, allowing Bush to pump insane amounts of deficit-spending into the military, pass "patriot" laws that curtail the very freedoms we're supposed to be defending, create a monolithic, secretive Department of Homeland Insecurity, and killing off innocents in Iraq. ( 1,000+ US soldiers and 13,000+ Iraqi CIVILIANS. Not counting the innocients in Afghanistan. See www.IraqBodyCount.com for details.)

Frankly, I'm tired of Bushes and Reagans scaring us with invisible enemies. Drug "war", terrorism "war"... It's McCarthyism all over again. Get RID of it. Kerry ain't great, but he's not a neocon turd like Bush.

Here's a chilling quote from Hermann Goerring:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... (but) it is always a simple matter to drag people along ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. --Herman Goerring at the 1946 Nuremberg trials.

Deos that sound like Bush talking privately with Rove, or what ?

No, Alanis, not really.

You have not been paying attention. To get up to speed in a hurry, read the speech given last month by U.S. Navy Capt. Ouimette, the Executive Officer at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, FL. It's entitled "World War III Began in 1979," and it details every attack of this war, including on our embassies, the Cole, etc., and how these attacks were met with little or no response (by Democrats and Republicans alike) until now. Look it up on the net. As he says, we can't go on hitting the snooze alarm!

You're right about the ignorance, but wrong about how deep it goes. The roots of the problem are not in international terrorist attacks against the US.

The root of the problem is in the under-reporting of US terrorist attacks against other nations. Americans are simply INSULATED by the very news organizations which should be bringing us "fair and balanced" reporting of how our government, in our name, is conducting terrorist attacks throughout the world.

Recommended reading:
911 by Noam Chomsky
Distorted Morality: America's war on terror ? (By Noam Chomsky)
http://www.IraqBodyCount.org



Recommended viewing:
Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
link at Amazon:

Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003)
link at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001IXT36/ref=pd_ser_asin_2/002-2413319-7180826?v=glance&s=dvd

You really don't get it. It's not the odds of getting hit. It's the effect of getting hit. The effect on our ecomony was a national tragedy. Our airlines are still losing a BILLION dollar a quarter. The Motorcoach industry (our largest source of public transportation) was devistated. Banks large and small hemoraged as a result and pulled back muck needed capital. Investment stagnated. Bush Tax cuts and his relentless pursuit of terrorists has revitalized the economy and brought back a sense of calm to our society.

If you really think Bush has revitalized the economy and instilled a sense of calm, you are as committed to not reading the papers, watching C-Span or catching the occasional news show as he is. The economy still stinks (and if you think it is bad now, wait till the hangover of the deficits hits just as all the baby boomers start to retire), Bush´s re-election theme boils down to Be Afraid - Be Very Afraid, and Bush consistently refuses to either learn from his experiences or to hold subordinates who screw up accountable.

I´m a Republican from childhood, worked in two US Senate races as a paid staffer for Republican candidates, have sat on boards of Republican organizations, and have given more money than I care to remember to Republican causes. I was a Republican back in the 60s and 70s when everyone else (including, apparently, our Commander in Chief) was high on grass and coke.

For the first time in my life, I´m embarrassed to be a Republican. We need to flush Bush and his handlers so we can take our party back.

You're not serious about your news, man.

The downturn in travel, tourism, and so on is the direct result of Bush's "war" on terrorism, not the effect of the terrorism itself.

Worse, we're still blind to the real reasons for the terrorism. I'd recommend reading the book "911" by Noam Chomsky, for an extended list of how the US has become the #1 terrorist nation on the planet. I'm not just talking about Camp X-ray or Abu Ghraib, here. I'm talking abotu the School of the Americas, bombing medical factory in the Sudan, sponsoring terrorism directed against ordinary people in South America, looking for exemption from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity...

Man, dont worry about the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden.
It's the unawareness of our OWN terrorism that caused WTC, that you shoudl eliminate, and it's Bush's fanning of the flames of paranoia that're destroying our economy.

I'm just deeply saddened that Kerry didn't vote against the war on Iraq from teh very beginning the way Dean did. Hopefully now that Kerry's wising up, he'll get and stay committed to dismantling the atmosphere of endless war, secrecy, and paranoia that Bush's subjkected us to.

that's a pretty dumb comment. Not doing anything about terrorism is like going outside with a lightening rod strapped to you everytime the weather gets bad.

Oh really??? What are YOU doing about terrorism, Mr./Ms. ANONYMOUS?? Nobody is saying don't do anything about terrorism. I'm not talking about terrorism. I'm looking for gridlock to protect against all of Bush's domestic blunders.
Re. terrorism, we ignored terrorism for a dozen years while we were attacked by the SAME terrorist group, Al Queda, over and over again. Finally, in retaliation, Bush decided to attack Sadaam Hussein of Iraq. Now THAT makes sense!!

"Not doing anythign about terrorism, is like going out in a lightning storm with a lightning rod strapped to you" ?

Oh, PUH-LEASE. You're buying the emotion, not seeing the statistics.
The statistics show that being killed by a terrorist in a given year (whether pre- or post-9/11, it makes little difference statistically) is equal to the likelihood of you getting killed by lightning in a given year.

So, DON'T buy the hype and paranoia, man.
Taking no special precautions about terrorism is like going about your life AS YOU NORMALLY WOULD.

Bush, on the other hand, is considerably more risky than the terrorist "threat". He's killed 4x~5x more people this year (including women and children) than Osama Bin Laden did in the year the WTC fell.
Proof: ( www.IraqBodyCount.org Statistics tabulated by reading well-respected publications)

About as many Americans were killed by terrorism on 9/11/2001 as are killed every single month by car accidents.

I don't have many second thoughts about driving a car, so maybe I'd start worrying about terrorism if we had 9/11-scale events every two weeks or so. But as it is, we've had exactly one in the last 65 years, making terrorism around 0.008% as large a threat to my life as driving is.

It will be more of a danger if we keep pretending that we're fighting it and instead appease/buy off our enemies. What in the h*** are we doing in Iraq when Iran and North Korea demand our attention.

Not that Kerry will do anything about it, either, but then at least there won't be any pretending that the U.S. is being tough. And maybe our troops don't have to die for a bunch of ingrates!

What Ingrates are you talking about ?

The ones in the white house, or the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, that our troops are dying to please ingrates. Like Halliburton & Bush.

Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have no reason to say "thanks". We've been dropping bombs on Iraq every 2 weeks for about a decade, even during the Clinton administration. In the first war against Iraq, we promised the Kurds support, if they'd rise against Saddam during our war... and then we abandoned them. Worse, we supported Turkey to the tune of several millions of dollars (in exchange for use of their airports during W's war on Iraq), and Turkey is using that money to attack ITS Kurds.

Saddam was bad, but he was a MODERATE compared to the Taliban-like groups who are now able to step in, now that he's gone. There is simply no pro-America group in Iraq that's prepared to take over the country's reins.

Worse, we didn't just make a surgical strike against Bin Laden or Saddam. No, we went in with a sledgehammer, killing, beating up, toruturing, and terrorizing 2 nations' innocent population.
Then, trying to install puppet regimes. Hell, we don't even allow freedom of the press in Iraq. We've SHUT DOWN NEWSPAPERS there, and physically threatened their staff.

Man, they HATE us for good reasons ! We didn't save them from anything, except by plunging them into a worse nightmare of starvation, lack of freedom, and oppression from afar.

Don't talk to me about Iran and North Korea. Those are just the NEXT items of fear, on a long list on Bush's desk. Man, he's hoping to keep us afraid (and voting for war and big military spending) just as long as he can.

Think about this: North Korea is isolated and STARVING. They don't even have China's support. They're going to collapse, like Russia did.

Think about this, too: When Berlin's wall came tumbling down, and Russia's government collapsed from within, WHY DIDN'T THE US GOVERNMENT KNOW in advance ? Certainly, we weren't told, yet the signs must have been obvious.

McCarthyism, cold war, "war" on drugs, "war" on terrrorism-- it's all invisible enemies, bogeymen under the bed, made to keep you voting like a scaredy-cat.

"nothing else matters if you're dead." was used by another user here, to say that 9/11 was worth noting.

However, let's think about that IN CONTEXT.
The paranoia and "military preparedness" is putting us at greater risk than the supposed (and miniscule) danger of 9/11 type terrorism.


The greatest fear of terrorism is that it'll kill innocents, and change our way of life. *ahem*... Isn't that what Bush is doing, with the FEAR of terrorism, his "patriot" packages, and war in Iraq and Afghanistan (as opposed to surgical strikes & UN support).

Lets' also think about the cost of preparedness, in terms of risk to our lives. One of the greatest fears is that terrorists will bring atomic weapons into the country, or attack another "national symbol"-type building, or release biological agents on American soil.

Yet... this is used as an EXCUSE to build up OUR stockpile of weapons, with predictable results:
1) A US plane has already crashed into the Empire State Building. (1940s) We can blame a careless military and an overstock of weapons for that.
(link)

2) At least 2 US Warplanes have already released atomic weapons over US soil (One in NJ, one over a US military base in Okinawa, where the US military had until then said it kept NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS).

3) Gulf of TOnkin: The US commits a terrorist attack AGAINST ITS OWN BATTLESHIP in order to drag us into war.
(link)

4) Nuclear "Dirty Bomb": One of our fears is that a cowardly terrorist will release an indiscriminate killer in the US-- a "dirty bomb" with conventional explosives, to distribute radioactive material. Yet... WE are doing that ! In Iraq, we used "depleted uranium" ammunition in conventional gunpowder-driven ammunition. That depleted uranium is radioactive, and lethal.
(link)

4) The US has a VERY active biological & nuclear (WMD) weapons program, and Bush has pushed for the program to be expanded.
(link)
There are literally hundreds of biological weapons factories and research facilites on American soil, in many, many states AND CITIES.
There's even a high-risk biological weapons lab planned for DOWNTOWN BOSTON !
(link)

So, who're you most afraid of ? The ragtag, ill-prepared bad men far away in Afghanistan, or the paranoid military whackos HERE in the US GOVERNMENT, turning America into a land as unsafe as a candle-laden birthday cake in a fireworks factory ?

Bush is making the world MORE dangerous for Americans, not less. 9/11 type disasters are the least of our problems.

Haha! "I'm a republican but I'm voting for Kerry because G.W. spends too much money...."

Chicken!

Nobody believes you're a republican. The LAST thing any republican, not to mention conservative, would do is VOTE FOR THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN GOVERNMENT!

You people will do or say anything.. why? for some ridiculous candidate? unbelievable....

Furthermore, nobody believes you really give a tinker's damn about the war. Like, "oh, oh, I'd vote for G.W. if the war were going better...." Duh! Do you people have ANY values? What the h*ll do you stand for??

A fiscally conservative person would more likely vote Libertarian than Democrat or Republican. Kerry = liberal democrat, Bush = squishy democrat. The only real difference is the GOP is afraid of boobies and gay people. Both parties want to spend more money and increase the size and function of the federal government.

Someone here said " The only real difference is the GOP is afraid of boobies and gay people."

What, are you kidding ?
Democrats at least give lip service to the American Dream-- equal economic opportunity, the chance to escape poverty, the need to live free or die.

Republicans (NeoCons, anyway) are all about lawyers, guns, and money. Destroying the economic ladder, leaving all the money & freedom at the top.
They're about colonialism, fear, feed-the-rich eat-the-poor, and control.

There's a BIG difference between Dems and Reps:
One spends your money on making America a land of freedom and opportunity, while the other spends your money on corporate welfare, jails, repression, and armies abroad.

It is not true that Kerry was the most liberal voting record in the Senate. In fact, his voting record is without distinction of any kind. It is innocuous.

You are spouting the media lies put out by the GOP.

What do I stand for? Small and honest government. Respect for citizenry. A government that stays out of my business and life as much as possible, yet one that supports ad big strong healty well-educated middle class. That is what makes a Demicracy work. This is an original Republican ideal, one tht the Republica Lincoln ran on. That has been dearly lost under this Administration.

This is no longer the real Republican party. I cannot give my vote to them.

Amen. I grew up thinking I was a Republican, based on what I'd read in my history text books. Then it came time to register to vote... voila, no longer a Republican.

Yeah, me too. I'm the grandson of a lifelong Republican campaign manager (and mayor).

But, I balk when I hear someone else here say "Respect for citizenry. A government that stays out of my business and life as much as possible, yet one that supports ad big strong healty well-educated middle class. That is what makes a Demicracy work. This is an original Republican ideal".

Man, that's what I grew up believing about the Democrats. Sadly, very clearly, the GOP is dead set on disenfranchising the poor and middle classes. They're all about concentrating the money and power at the top, while jobs go overseas and the middle class is forced to work at slave wages with no job security and no hope of a safe retirement some day.

I'll vote for the first guy who promises
1) no deficit spending
2) real respect for the citizenry (and freedom)
3) no more US-sponsored terrorism
4) economic opportunity
5) educational loans, so even poor people can escape poverty...if they're bright enough to get into a good college.
6) small business loans
7) supporting freedom of the press WITH journalistic integrity
(not the supply-side press controls that Reagan and Rupert Murdoch ushered in)

Dont start lecturing about values when the party that controls the house the senate the whitehouse can't actually do anything that fits with the core values of what republicanism used to stand for (yeah,that's right "values" means more than "fags and boobies are bad" or "security means the president is always right"). The only thing the Rs have done while in power is pander to the right wing of the party and kiss the presidents butt.

W isn't a real republican..seriously. And in fact I think the RNC aren't real Republicans either anymore. Since he won the whitehouse the institutional R party is falling all over itself to fall in line and keep power, but it's absurd. You Bush Bots ("four more years, four more years") with your vacuous, twisting talking points make we want to puke... read some goddamn history about some real conservatives with stature and problem solving skills like Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I... (By the way, W is not the reincarnation of Reagan, okay?)


So since everyone will be corrupted, yay for institutional solutions, yay for checks and balances and strategic voting. Gridlock IS good.

Reagan and Bush I... representing core "moral values" You're kidding, right ?

Reagan did quite a bit ot end morality and law-abiding in the White House. Have you forgotten Contragate, where Reagan was setting up his own terrorism-in-Mid-East-and-in-South-America funding operation, in defiance of laws passed by Congress ?
Are you forgetting that Reagan stepped all over the minimum wage and medicare and social security, in favor of corporate welfare for the rich, and jobs in the military for our most employable strong youth ?
Reagan...yeah, he's the *snort* "great communicator" who held a RECORD FEW number of press conferences compared to any other president prior to him, in the 20th century. He's the one who invented "siberia" for reporters, refusing to allow questions from reporters, if they'd asked him politically embarrassing questions in the past.
Ain't he the guy who'd start up the White House chopper early, rather than answer questions from the Press ?

Oh, yeah... a real model of respect for government and freedom of the press and the American Dream, was Reagan ! Sorry...the bartender's cutting you off until you sober up.

And, let's not forget Bush I, former director of the CIA. In charge when the US was training the Taliban in terrorism ! In charge of the CIA when the CIA was making deals with Noriega ! In charge when the US was taken BY SURPRISE by the collapse of Russia and the Berlin Wall (Heaven forbid, impending peace should stop our cold-war overkill military budget !)

Bush I... Ain't he the guy who went to war in the Persian Gulf, to defend the SULTAN of KUWAIT ? Ain't any freedom in Kuwait, boys. He did squat to help the freedom-wanting Kurds in the north of Iraq, and he started the program of bombing Iraq on a biweekly basis, AFTER THE PERSIAN GULF WAR WAS OVER.

Oh, yeah... he's my HERO, I tell ya.

Lincoln, sure... but shut your mouth and THINK before you call any modern Republican presidents WORTHY of our respect.
Nixon, Reagan, Bushes... they're all secretive, anti-freedom, pro-police-state, anti-American-Dream jerks.
The only differnce between them and the new Bush is, one of degree... and of course, the Baby Bush didn't get elected. ;^)

I'm voting for Kerry because Bush is religious, and acting accordingly, both with respect to the "war" and domestic policy.

BS. We would vote for Badnarik if it wasn't so bloody hopeless.
When it comes to spending, Dubya makes Kerry look like Milton Friedmann.
Down with the Fourth Reich.
And while we're at it - keep church and State completely seperate.
I might have supported Bush this year if instead of attacking secular Iraq, he had waged a war of TOTAL ANNIHILATION on Islamist Saudi Arabia.

Only good Saudi's are dead ones.

Need to stay above the fray

If he misses one more episode of "Joey" he'll lose the plot line

Gotta floss!

Old shrapnel wounds acting up

The campaign has made a stategic move to go "dark" in October to prepare for the crucial November campaign season

Turf toe!

Scott Peterson trial is heating up.

Celebrate traditional Kerry clan harvest festival.


FAQ
Q. Do I have to hate Bush to be a

Did somebody erase Kerry's Senate career again? What in his record makes you think he will do ANYthing conservative? I guess people only care about what a politician says.

people here do know the record.. that's the point. A democrat president surrounded by republican congress = occasional farts of good sense.

Don't kid yourself. like someone said above

Kerry = democrat

Bush = squishy democrat.

Bush does NOT = a squshy democrat. He represents the NeoCon unchained: a relentless whacko-right-wing republican. You don't see Bush endorsing ANY democrat ideals, do you ? DO YOU ? Didn't think so.

I agree with nearly everything Kerry says, but can not bring myself to watch this man on TV.

When I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, all I could think was "If the Republicans tried to do a film like this about John Kerry, it would be unwatchable. It would be the biggest bomb in motion picture history, because no one would pay money to spend 2 hrs. looking at John Kerry."

I concurred with everything Michael Moore said in this movie, and part of its appeal was seeing Bush acting like an idiot. That quality is great for comedians, actors and Survivor contestants. But it does not belong in the leader of the free world. Bush is not the only reason America is hated overseas, but he's a large part of it. It's time to kick this appealing idiot out of the White House.

'I concurred with everything Michael Moore said in [Farenheit 9/11].'

You are now banned from making any more comments on grounds of stupidity.

If I were really stupid, I would not have gone to see Michael Moore's movie in the first place. I would have just stayed at home and believed all the bullshit broadcast on FOX news. Just like millions of other idiotic Americans!

wow, sounds like you really do buy into everything moore says. "Yeah dude, FOX sucks. Kill Whitey!!"

So anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid? Wow, I must be a huge freaking idiot, then, so obviously I can't put any more comments here, either.

If you don't believe Micahel Moore, why not check his facts.
Go to his website NOW (www.MichaelMoore.com), and look at the line-by-line proofs he gives for each spoken line in the film 9/11.

The proofs are legitimate, drawn from respected news publications for the most part, and interviews & government documents for the rest.

Enjoy your awakening. And... DON'T ban someone from this site, for having a different viewpoint. Listenign to other perspectives makes you a better, wiser man.

I guess you missed the part about Germany, France and Russia being bribed by Saddam. Of course they don't like Bush. He cost them tons of money!!!

My fav part was Ashcroft's solo.

Concurr with Michael Moore? Bush acting like an idiot? Boy....you're just letting everyone see your ignorance...and idiotic mentality...

"Oh, be jeezus".. you've really convinced everyone otherwise. Hows about you keep your mediocre criticisms to yourself, unless you have something constructive to say.

I used to think John Kerry was the worst, other than Kucinich, out of our democratic nominee line-up and, even after all the partyline bullshit, I still do!

don't know if everyone realizes this but the Media Assasinated HOWARD DEAN who I didn't follow that much but in retrospect appears to have been right on all the issues....
fiscal discipline, no reason to go to war in Iraq etc....

After the media duped us over dean they are now trying to get billy bob to go with Bushwhacked who is the modern day
marlboro man -- a complete facade who lives in neverland ranch was born in connecticut, andover prep , harvard, yale, etc... has been a disaster on every issue -- but he sure does look like an average joe..


Is our country really stupid enough to listen to the morons on TV?

If anyone has ever heard of a Ranch that doesn't have anything alive on it let me know...

yet another beautiful Marlboro Man madison avenue facade pulled off by Rove... The more you buy the product the worse of you are... 2 marlboro man died of lung cancer but only 1054 americans have died in Iraq...so far.

Do people realize that the man negotiating the debates for Bush, James Baker, defended the Saudi's against 9-11 lawsuits.


Are the American people the dumbest people in the industrialized world??

you mean the same James Baker that Bush hired to gaurantee that the Florida recount would be for Bush?

aren't americans stupid..

The europeans go back and forth trying to understand how the most creative economic power of all time can have 50% of our voters be retarded simultaneously..

Just a friendly tip: you (and the Europeans) will never understand the creativity and dynamism of the U.S. economy as long as you cling to the notion that 50% of Americans must be stupid, simply because they don't agree with you. I disagree with many of my fellow Americans, probably on many more things than the posters to this site; however, I have never found the "smarter than thou" approach an effective persuasion strategy in the marketplace of ideas. If a "product" doesn't sell, castigating consumers won't help.

The answer, by the way, regarding the creative energy and resilience of the U.S. economy: the competition of capitalism, muddled and encumbered though it is in America. (There's a tip in there, too, for political marketers.)

Honestly most times I would agree with what you are saying but come on its Bush. He basically lied about WMD. He goes on and on about bringing freedom to Iraq while keeping people in Guantanamo without charges which is against the very freedoms we as Americans enjoy. Dont get me wrong our safety is important but shouldnt up holding our very foundation as a country be as important??? The reason I cant see many intelligent people thinking Bush is a better leader is because he still insults countries like France even though we all know we desperately could use their help in Iraq now to remove the American Occupation moniker. Bush has alienated us from the world further and further and I just dont understand how many people think Bush isnt going to further damage Americas relationships. (Alot of you will say who cares what the world thinks but with the EU growing if we continue to burn bridges and continue to have to spend Billions in Iraq we might find ourselves being caught up economically and power wise by the EU)

You raise an important point on the economics involved, with this war and any other military action. Who pays for it, in what proportion, and how does that impact U.S. leadership of the global economy?

Like any other transaction among free people, I submit, it depends entirely on the interests and means of prospective allies/investors. I don't think it's personal. Struggling as they are to reform their economies to compete more effectively, EU countries largely don't have the means to help, even if they had the interest. Ruffling the Europeans' feathers for its own sake is, I agree, unproductive and many of us would like a more polished rhetorician in the White House. I don't, however, see a realistic scenario -- other than the proven avenues of bribery and coersion -- that will change their view about what's in their best interest. In fact, I would suggest (cynically, I know) that it would be in the interest of countries with sluggish economies to stay on the sidelines in most conflicts, knowing that the Americans will handle it (pay for it). It's a win-win for them...as the U.S. burdens its economy with military actions, the EU gets a breather to figure out how to jump-start theirs!

That's among the reasons I'm so PO'd about the lack of fiscal discipline among both parties -- if the roof is caving in on your house, it's wise to borrow against future earnings to get it fixed...but you don't, at the same time, extend yourself yet further by also charging a new home theater system (or Medicare prescription benefit, as the case may be). They're offering us "guns and butter" again...Bullwinkle, that trick never works!

Our "allies" in the war in Iraq are getting American military bases, which translate into big dollars....just ask the Germans who are losing their bases. The announcement was made a couple of months ago and we were told the plans were in the works for a couple of years for better "strategic" positioning......just about the time we were negotiating with "allies" for the Iraqi invasion. Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland are at the top of the list. Coincidence?

Don't get too wound up about Iraq. Worry more about our financial situation. Bush will HAVE to raise taxes....and he won't just put them back where they were, but he'll RAISE them. Once he's in office, there's nothing anyone can do. At least Kerry is honest about it. Someone's gotta pay for the liberation of the Iraqi people and their healthcare and schools.....it's you and me.

Thank you for making my point about how free peoples make "alliances." But rather than raise taxes to pay the tab, I'd prefer scaling back our lifestyle by returning the home theater system, er, Medicare drug benefit and $100 million rainforest in Iowa, among other things.

You are so right. I'm still trying to figure out who foisted Kerry on us with the rationale that "he could win" when Dean couldn't. I'm convinced that all those Conservatives who said they wanted to run against Dean because he would be easy to beat really wanted to run against Kerry for the same reason. They knew that Dean would be hard to beat because he was willing to speak his mind, tell the truth, and not worry about what the "popular wisdom" had to say. I'm sick about having to vote for Kerry. I know the next four years will be better with him than with Bush, but not better enough, I fear.

I completely agree with the media ripping Dean to pieces. Also Kerry and his campaign played very dirty when came to the primarries. Calling Dean supporters at 3 in the morning and telling them to go to the wrong adresses for voting. Pretty messed up stuff.

America is not ready for a president that doesn't take money from special interest groups.

That being said....I hate him, but damned if Im not voting for him.

At least there are more people like me....thanks kh4k!

I campainged for Dean. He did have it right on. He was painted as a jackass radical by the media. I am glad he did get in the race, even if he failed to win the nomination. He still managed to put some things on the table no one wanted to touch. I'm voting Kerry as a Non Partisan centerist. Only having 2 parties that compete is a bad idea. Too narrow. Neither are completely right or wrong. I want my civil liberties - REINSTATED.

Ofcourse we are stupid enough to listen to morons on TV - just watch most reality based TV shows - the fact people devote a second of their life to watch the schemings of wannabee actress/models and community college drop outs is astounding

The reason why most of us reality show fans exist is because so many scripted shows suck these days. Reality bites, but it's better than the alternative. Similar to the reason this site exists. We know that Kerry is lame, but he's a hell of lot better than the alternative!

What was wrong with Kucinich? He at least had a set of balls.

He was my guy but no one had the balls stand up and vote for him! (I would have loved to have seen him run with Rev. Al as his VP!)

Yeah he did, but he borrowed them!

So, do you think this is helping? No, you know perfectly well it's not, and that's the idea. Kerry is "awful" only if you take the Republican campaign ads as gospel and haven't spent a single moment considering what he has really said and done.

This is a poorly disguised Kerry Haters Against Kerry site, and its entire purpose is to spread Republican talking points and caricatures as if it were Democrats spreading them.

You twit. Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to vote for a candidate while holding your nose. Christ, it's nothing short of a time-honored tradition. John Kerry is an uninspiring hack. I'm a classic liberal and I'm perfectly comfortable saying that. If you believe that a party can only thrive withouth dissent, you ought to join the GOP - they're all about lock-step unity.

The Big Forehead

Dear KH4K,

Although I am a non party affiliated voter, I am fully aware that our current president is too dangerous to be left in charge of a box of Legos™, let alone a whole nation. Last year we saw two shining stars offering beacons of hope enter the ring for the Democratic Presidential nominee; Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Sadly, we got stuck with these guys, Kerry and Edwards, who together have the charisma of a sack of wet noodles. (And even sadder, the sack of wet noodles worth of Charisma all belongs to Edwards.) Ever since Kerry became the frontrunner, I have been caught in a spiral of shame; how can I hold my head up high when I feel so dirty for being forced to vote for this man?

Thank you for saying what we all have secretly felt since he became the Democratic frontrunner. Kerry is a pompous, self-serving, out-of-touch with reality, smug, arrogant, botoxed, fake tanned, just-plain-fake wind bag; but we have to vote for him because somehow the current president is even worse.

Anybody but Bush! But does it have to be this guy?

You may be right on Kerry but edwards is really pretty good.

for some reason - either the media or the campaign -- he gets no attention...

and you're right Bush can't be trusted with a box of legos let alone trillion dollars of spending...

when will we see the commercial with Baghdad Bob compared to Baghdad Bush

Why do you people like Wes Clark when he was uniformly despised by the military? He has no integrity and no credibility among the senior leaders of the military.

Howard Dean? At least he believed what he believed, even if he is a little Michael Moronic for me.

You should have picked Gephardt or Lieberman if you wanted the red states to take the dem candidate seriously. Too bad, cause your choices will make the next 4 years pretty tough to swallow...I remember what it was like to be military for EIGHT years under Clinton...always counting the day until "help would be on the way"

And what has W done to fix the damage Clinton did to the military?

I like the guy. Seriously.

Get to know him better:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004A.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry
http://www.goingupriver.com/

Go ahead, like him, more power to you! Maybe if Dems didn't blindly follow the media and pull the lever for kerry, maybe if dems after realizing they muffed up a good thing.... Hey Deanies, Clarkistas come back...and started up with frickin' loyalty oaths, sites like this wouldn't exist.

A Vote doesn't mean Support. Some of might grow to like the treebeard AFTER he has been in office and PROVED that he was worthy. Dean, I might Add WAS and IS loved by a Large majority of Vermonters Due to his Actual Performance IN OFFICE.

Nice try, but your agenda is showing. But hey, Glad you like Mr. Treebeard! Someone has to.

disgruntled voter

Almost forgot this one:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/kerry/040726

Campaign 2004....hey both suck. Vote for the man you hate least!

I recommend you read slate.msn.com if you want some good analysis of Kerry that fits the theme of this site. I don't agree with the flip flop caricature- that's straight from the Bush compaign. It's more that he's a political straddler whose always a step behind. Kerry is a weak, partisan hack. If you look at his senate record he's been consistently wrong on most issues. Like his vote against the 1st Iraq war, then his vote in favor of the current one. Sigh- but to have Wesley Clark or Howard Dean, both of whom got both of those votes right. I hope the democrats that voted for this guy in the primaries are suffering right now.

I voted for Wesley Clark in the primaries cuz I thought he had a spine and was electable. Anyhow, voting for Kerry given the current poll numbers is seeming pointless. If the debates don't shift things to the middle, I'm going to write in Howard Dean. I mean, as long as it doesn't matter, why not vote for the guy you'd really like to have as president?

Don't be Nadered!!

IMAGINE WHAT OUR COUNTRY WILL BE LIKE IF WE GET 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH... YOU MUST VOTE KERRY...
JUST HOLD YOUR NOSE... I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DONATE OR GET A BUMPER STICKER..

seriously, many op eds are saying they'd like to see Bushy clean up a mess (that he created) for the first time in his life...
but really we know he can't, no on even dean would have the balls big enough and steely enought to clean up after 4 more years of Bush.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry if it's close, but if we're in a blowout situation, or if you're in a state that isn't competitive, then I see no reason to vote for him. Clearly Nader is satan- he screwed the country deep and hard by not withdrawing from competitive states at the end of the 2000 cycle.

regardless of polls there is always hope of keeping Bush below 50%...

that way when I travel abroad I can still say most americans didn't vote for Bush and don't have to pretend I'm canadian as many of my colleagues do....

every vote counts.

Third party votes will help keep Bush below 50%. I'd prefer to make sure that Kerry is below 50% as well.

I'm voting for Nader as a big F-You to the Democratic party. I can do that because I live in Maryland, my vote doesn't count anyway.

Dick Gephardt and our national democrat leadership fire bombed the Dean Campaign...Wesley Clark was my second choice...I am resigned to voting for Kerry and accepting his defeat...We need to flush the shit-for-brains down the drain and start with a fresh roll....

Another imposter pro-Bush site hoping to demoralize the Dem base. Kudos!

Real men don't post anonymously.

You people are losers. Stop whining. My friend gave me this site and it almost makes me sick to be an American when I read this filth.
Real Americans For Bush

Real Americans are stupid enough to be for Bush..

Ummm, we're still talking about the idiot living in the White House and not the other thing, right?

If you're not sick(or embarassed) to be be an American after the last four years, then it isn't going to happen.

I'm not sick or embarrassed to be an American and never will be. Get a friggin clue.

Because he looks like the tree people from Lord of the Rings.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone can be a Democrat and not like Kerry? They're both unqualified because we as voters enjoy being told about our rosy future. Can you imagine how many votes a candidate would get if they told us that they had little or no power to affect the economy?

Someone needs to setup a BushIsADryDrunkWithQuestionablyLowIQ.com and include the following post Gulf War pre 9/11 Dick Cheney quote.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Things Kerry will NOT (I hope!!) do as president:
1. Consult with the religious right/wrong about the operations of the US government.
2. Give tax money to religious organizations while defending their right to discriminate against non-members of their church.
3. Demonize gays for votes.
4. Send young people to be maimed or killed after having avoiding going into harm's way himself.
5. Title a piece of legislation designed to allow the better off to move their children away from the less well off "No Child Left Behind."
6. Launch carte blanche for polluters in legislation called "the Clear Skies" act.
7. Appoint racists and neanderthals to the federal bench.
8. Characterize everyone with whom he has issues as "evil" or "terrorists."
9. Corrupt the English language as egregiously as this lot has gleefully done. Examples: death tax, compassionate conservatism, failing schools
10. Pre-empt terrorists in Iran, Syria, Indonesia, North Korea. If we do that, we'll even have to take the children of the wealthy into the military.

You're right, cuz Kerry WON'T do anything for the next four years (if he is unfortunately elected) but drone on like a tenured human studies prof who has lost his syllabus...oh, wait, but he'll be more sensitive about it...sheesh, what a pole.

Don't worry, Kerry will never have the chance. President Bush, however, will complete all ten over the next 4 years.

"before i call president bush dishonest one more time i have to come clean - its true, i'm a straddler. i purposely obfuscate my positions so that, after the fact, i can claim agreement with whichever side prevails, with whatever alliance is convenient. i don't apologize for it or regret. its an effective way of building consensus in a parliamentary body. its a way of ensuring reelection. but i will no longer deny it. i have straddled, i am straddling and i will straddle again."

ahh, if only.

test

I love john edwards as a candidate and am a long for the ride with Kerry..

Who knows, the way Cheney pulls all those strings and tells George Bush what to say and do , Edwards will have a lot more influence than you think..

And Besides - George Bush is really really bad... I mean his adminsitration is one step above the Carnie games and shell games on the streets of New York..

If Kerry would just tell the truth - like he did accidentally when he called the Bush administration the biggest bunch of lyers and crooks he'd ever seen - people would like him more.


Call bush a liar -- we all know he is... 6 million new jobs (7 million short), "uniter not divider", WMDS and "we know exactly where they are", freedom is on the march in Iraq,,
ya da ya da ya .... How do you know when Bush is lying....his lips are moving... I think his speech impediment is neurological damage from simultaneous cocaine and alcohol abuse in the 70s..

You need to start a new site

Bush Haters For Bush

Collin Powell and John McCain can be the first bloggers.

(all the other poor bastards who won't notice any difference in their taxes but will provide human fodder as their offspring in IRaq, Iran, Syria etc... should join the blog too if they ever figure out gay marriage and abortion won't change whether it's Kerry or Bush)

Yeah, he sucks, but not nearly as much as the other possibility.

When are we going to get an election where we can vote for the best candidate and not the least incompetant and corrupt one?

Every time a Kerry ad appears my dog starts barking wildly. Usually I vote for whichever candidate Alamo prefers, but this time I've got to go against her wishes. So Sorry Alamo, I hate him too, but mama needs her social security. -Mavis

Both of mine growl at Kerry -- consistently and with real feeling.

Let’s face it. Kerry’s only shot at beating Bush at this point is if Bush makes some horrific gaffe during the debate tonight, which is exactly what that 32 page rule book was designed to prevent. All we can hope for is for W. to blurt out some insane non- sequitur, like, “I never really liked black people!” or “I am Dick Cheney’s man bitch!” Short of that it’s a seriously uphill battle for our bright orange Tax-a-chusettes blue blood douche bag.

If bush doesn't admit mistakes in Iraq and that place goes into real civil war he could certainly lose on that alone...

or if Iran enters the picture...

Bush has never admitted a mistake in his life. Don't count on him starting tonight.

Democrats showed why they are such perpetual losers by ominating
Kerry. "Electability", my ass. I always thought Kerry was one of the least elactable of the candidates. Resume candidates never win. Basically, Kerry is a proxy for Democrats who want to play not-to-lose rather than to win. Those of you who are sports fans will understand how this is a self-defeating strategy.

As Clinton said, "strong and wrong beats weak and right". He was talking about leadership. This post-9/11 election will be decided by people's judgment of the candidates' strength of leadership.

Way back when, Kerry said "bring it on!" and the Dems didn't realize that this shows that Kerry has no understanding of true leadership... he can't even think past playing defense against the Republican offense. Leadership requires standing up and redefining the layout of the field, reframing the argument, redefining the terms of the agenda. If you were a Dean supporter you probably understand this. A true leader would have talked about "taking it to them!"

Kerry's record is for the most part one of doing what is popular, what is politically convenient. On the occassion when he has decided to step out and talk about something difficult, he doesn't follow up with the action that leadership requires. A true leader would put himself on the line.

What about his campaign message? In the primaries, it was stolen from Dean verbatim. Then it was resume/Vietnam. A true leader would be able to develop his own message and make it effective.

Leadership involves creativity and guts. A true leader is able to understand the issues underlying a debate and redefine the terms of the debate rather than argue with his opponent's terms. Sure hasn't happened, has it?

The general electorate is in the mood for a strong leader in this post-9/11 era. This explains Bush's strength. He is strong and wrong. Weak and right would be better for America, but this will not beat him. Kerry is weak and right. And I think if you agree with my descriptions of true and strong leadership, you might think Dean looks pretty good now! And America does need a strong and right
leader at this point in history.

True and strong leadership qualities include the ability to lay out your own playing field, and the demonstrated ability to walk the talk.

Democrats are losers because they don't understand what leadership is.

Don't forget the Media's role in this too....


remember they took howard dean out back and slit his throat... how would an aggresive candidate who is an MD (health care), fiscal conservative, knew Iraq was wrong all the time person be looking now? pretty good..


Even with Kerry who is about 10 times better than Bush the Media keeps slamming him even though most people forget BUSH HAS BEEN PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS AND SUCKED HARD...

it's 1/3 the dems fault for picking the candidate the media told them

1/3 the media's fault for focusing on nonsense and for failing to get the facts out ( less than half of americans polled no anything factual about either candidate)

1/3 kerry campaign's fault for being way too timid and not portraying Bush as the Liar that he is..

You can all write anything you want, make up any reasons you want to make up, but we all know it comes down to one thing -ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

Speaking of dissaffected Republicans:

Ike's son endorses Kerry

So. That would only be news if Ike himself clawed his way out of his grave like Uma in Kill Bill Vol. 2. I don't know Ike's son and don't care who he votes for. This kind of comment reminds me of when I read Lloyd Grove's "column" this week when he said something along the lines that "the anti-Bush gang has a new member in Star Trek's George Takai..." Wow, knowing how Sulu votes really matters to me!!!!

One word... DEAN

I'm a proud card carrying member of the kerryhatersforkerry campaign. Is this really the best the Democrats could come up with? I'm dismayed about the whole thing so instead of thinking about politics now I just worry more about inflation of bagel prices. I say bagel prices because I live in New York City and don't have a car.

check out my website www.approachingmidnight.blogspot.com

Someone asked if "this was the best the Democrats could come up with ?"

Well, no, obviously not. It's just that Rupert Murdoch and the Conservative Press hold sway over the nation, at the moment. So, we're picking a far-right Democrat (if there is such a thing), and once he gets elected, hopefully the nation will start swining back toward the center (/center-left).

So, he's a stopgap measure, til the nation recovers. He's what the nation will go for, at the moment.

So, your question is a bit derisive. Should I say that "Bush is the best the Republicans can come up with" ? Well, no. Obviously not. The GOP can't be THAT whacko.

And while we're at it...
Make it bloody well illegal for Austrians and Brittons to own media in the United States.
How many Austrians have you seen in the Coalition of the Willing?
Not even the Terminator...

bush ain't gonna save crap! throw your SS out the door lady with little bushie who couldn't make money to save his life.

>>Every time a Kerry ad appears my dog starts barking wildly. Usually I vote for whichever candidate Alamo prefers, but this time I've got to go against her wishes. So Sorry Alamo, I hate him too, but mama needs her social security. -Mavis

I'm so glad I found you!!! I can't stand Kerry but wouldn't consider voting for anyone else...and I'm from Massachusetts. The 1,500 or so people he will bring to Washington with him in the new administration are what counts...not to mention that I want him in the oval office when it comes time to appoint a new justice to the supreme court. Now, if I just didn't have to see or hear him...

Also being from Massachusetts, I am not thrilled with Kerry. Didn't vote for him when he ran against William Weld and would seriously look at any candidate that ran against him for senator again (if he does not win the presidential election). He has done absolutely nothing for Massachusetts. In fact Mitt Romney (Governor of MA), has gone on the record and has said that whenever he needs anything done for the state, he goes to Ted Kennedy. He knows that going to Kerry is a waste of time. I defy anyone in any newsgroup to name one thing (other than his trips to Vietnam), that he has done for Massachusetts. Don't even think of mentioning the "Big Dig", that was Tip O'Neill and Kennedy.

However, I agree that he would bring a change in administration, which is the reason I have voted for him, (absentee ballot - buisness trip on election day). It is time to get rid of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Ashcroft and their stooges. Also, think about the impact Bush would have on the Supreme Court in the next four years. The war in Iraq is another topic that has been talked about enough - but is another reason. The economy, forgetaboutit!

All-in-all, it came down to holding my nose and voting for Kerry.

If Howard Dean were the candidate...



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041004-702123,00.html

It's not that Dean would have done one thing differently than Kerry; he would have done almost everything differently.

and then, there's (potentially, someday) this option: http://www.nota.org/mass.html
ive grown to resent our lack of choice; this is a solution long overdue in american politics.

Who here would want their children raped, tortured, beaton, and shot through the skull because they didnt think Canada was a horrible Country? Thats how it WAS before America Liberated the majority of Iraq! People were put in midevil torture devices cause some sick psyco enjoyed seeing people bleed. I know anyone who saw Iraq in the Olympics, felt a little bit better about this shit hole world for which we all live on. I don't know about anyone else, but I was never given the power to say who deserves to live a bad life, and who gets to be born in America, but I do have the power to vote for a man who would rather believe in God and Freedom, than one who would vote for the murder of an unborn child, while going to a Catholic Convention to get votes. YOU PEOPLE NEED SOME MAJOR HELP! God Save us ALL!

Your're an idiot.

You're obviously not Iraqi.

The article has been discussed a few days ago at msn, and many people noticed, that this sounded like a biased information.
Amazon

Jesus, what an idiot.

Claiming that our invasion and occupation is morally justifiable and something to be proud of simply because the former regime was brutal doesn't carry much water for me. There are more than 50 dictatorships in the world that frequently are brutal to their citizens. It would be nice to eliminate all of them and replace them with democracies of our design. But, as Iraq is illustrating, this is a very simplistic and dangerous vision. Those revolutions that are successful in removing a dictator and creating a representative government are always initiated by and carried out primarily by the citizens of the country in question. That isn't exactly easy either, but it has worked well a number of times in history (our own history might qualify, though early colonists probably weren't being brutalized in the way some 3rd world citizens are today).

The idea that we can go in and force democracy on people is loony and destined to result in more failures than successes.

Furthermore, it is tough to shed tears of joy over the liberation of Iraq when the stated purpose of our action was to prevent attacks by WMD on US soil, not to free the Iraqi people from a dictator. We spent the money and sacrificed the lives in a move to make us more secure... are we more secure now?

I cannot accept the premise that Bush supporters can claim the moral high ground for this Rambo-like use of American muscle to spread "freedom" around the world. That is a bottle of snake-oil I don't want to pay for.

I certainly hope Iraq becomes a relatively stable country with some form of representative goverment that can control the spread of Islamic jihad targeted at us. I am not holding my breath.

Four more years of Bush and company? God save us all.

What a complete, F*****g idiot! ( I hate to be left out).

For you mornons who think that we went to Iraq to free the people from a brutal dictator, please note that we are not going into Sudan or a dozen other brutal dictatorships where people are dying. Why? There ain't no oil there and Bushie's buddies need the cash!!!!

...and the rest of us need the oil. It is fundamental to your way of life, fueling virtually everything around you (including this blog) and, notwithstanding Ed Begley's romance with wind and solar, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I recall Jimmy Carter and every president since talking about "energy independence." Nobody's going to deliver on that promise until all the world's wells run dry, in about 100 years or so.

If, however, you've taken up residence in Ted Kuzinski's old digs, renouncing "oil interests" in a meaningful way, you're the exception and are entitled to your righteous indignation.

BTW, I'm appalled that 50,000 dead doesn't meet the U.N. definition of genocide.

Please return to your crack pipe, you're not mentally competent to vote. We'll save your worthless slacker ass anyway.

Yeah, and like the Sudanese don't have bombs and poison gas and stuff to share with al Qaeda!

"Who here would want their children raped, tortured, beaton, and shot through the skull because they didnt think Canada was a horrible Country?" Now I have some inteligence but can someone please explain why the - I assume - canadian journalist in Iran has anything to do with Iraq. Please help me.

Hmmmm, it seems Jorge study at the George W. Bush school of speech giving!

Was there any point there other than he's Pro-Life? But oddly, seems to be in favor of 1000s of soldiers being sent to die in an unjustifiable war. Doesn't sound all that Pro-Life to me.

Which God? Bush's God of war? Or Al Quaeda's God of war? Same god and they both think it favors them.

I don't get how Kerry got the nomination in the first place. The entire nation has to put up with whoever Iowa and New Hampshire pick (all the remaining fight is formality after the media coronates the winner of these two primaries as champion). Is that a representative sampling? Did the folks in Iowa just walk into the booth and cover their eyes and push a button? Kerry has so much political baggage he needs a permanent bellhop to follow him around. Dean did come off as a little unhinged, but at least he would have taken the fight to the GOP and forced the media to talk about things like judicial choices, the environment, etc. etc. And Clark would have been made of teflon in the age of perpetual war.

I really do think that Kerry would make a MUCH better president than King George II... but then, who (with an IQ over 40) wouldn't?

For one thing, let's just put aside all the crap up here about how there's no point to voting for Kerry. Kerry is going to win. The vast majority of national polls put Kerry just a couple of points down, with a healthy undecided population, most of which will break to him. The polls also don't include the large number of new registrations, which break very heavily democratic, in most swing states.

Now, to the meat: what's so unappealing about Kerry? How many people on this site have actually heard him speak, or seen him through anything other than an unflattering media lens? I've seen him speak three times here in Philadelphia. Before I saw him, I was pretty down on him, but I'm now really impressed. He comes across as smart, thoughtful,and compassionate, and I think he's going to be a great president. The only thing that anyone on this site has been able to point to that justifies dragging Kerry over the coals like this (besides the way he looks and his accent) is that he's supposedly a "straddler," who does things that are politically convenient. Well, um, voting against the first Iraq war wasn't exactly the most politically convenient position. And speaking out against the Vietnam War when he came back took courage, too. He's sketched out a consistent, middle-of-the-road position on this war--that it was based on good principles but excecuted completely incorrectly--that doesn't lend itself well to answering yes-or-no questions, but still makes perfect sense to me.

Finally, what's the point of thinking like this? Rather than dreaming up reasons to feel superior to the guy you're going to vote for, why not give him a chance on his own terms? How is posting unfounded, shitty comments about Kerry going to help you get what you want?

everyone in the United States should read this - we have to do ANYTHING we can to get Kerry elected. negative comments about Kerry is not what we need - we need to get Bush out of Washington! Now!

What's so unappealing about Kerry? The fact that he doesn't exhibit much strength of leadership (do you see it in his campaign?) in an election that will be decided by strength of leadership... and thus is having a hell of a time against Bush when a good Dem candidate wouldn't. See the long comment a few pages above.

Yeah, we need to get Bush out before he damages America even more. That's whats so frustrating about Kerry... couldn't have picked much of a better softball for Bush/.Rove.

Stubborn stupidity is not leadership. Nor is not seeing the facts and adjusting action accordingly. That is just plain smart. But given that a lot of people in this country still think a good ass-kicking is what's needed for just about anything, Bush sounds better to them.

I agree with the person who said we should all actually LISTEN to Kerry. He did WONDERFULLY in the debate last week. He has a brain, just not a very "amiable" one.

If anyone has to even think about it any more, here's something to chew on: the "terrorists" want a holy war and we have a fundamentalist Christian with an itch to fight in the White House. It's their wet dream.

While I agree that "openin' a can o' whup-ass" isn't the answer to every problem, I also don't suppose that refusing to acknowledge the jihadists' holy war (their term, not ours) will cause them to embrace pluralism and leave us alone.

The great 'un-said' of this campaign is that ALL Westerners, both the faithful and the faithless, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, are ineluctably dubbed The Great Satan by people who view history in terms of centuries, not 4-year election cycles. Yet we continue to allow ourselves to be distracted and divided by what are, in a global sense, trivial differences. Joe Lieberman grasped that crucial point, and was soundly defeated.

Why complain about Kerry? It makes me feel better. I'm still going to vote for him, but I need to vent and complain before I do it.

Why don't you give us your name and e-mail so we can laugh at you when Kerry doesn't win.....

I would vote for Nader, but he's not on the ballot in Arizona. I guess voting for Kerry is better than not voting.

Ralph's Arizona ballot tactics are worse than this week's Democratic lawsuit alleges. Some petitions piggybacked on a reactionary anti-immigrant initiative and others were paid for by a former executive director of the state GOP.
----------

Adam

arizona drug rehab

He's dull, he's ponderous, but he's not Cheney. Given that choice I think the decision is easy. You can't always get what you want...

People who don't like Bush or Kerry should vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States (badnarik.org). Badnarik will get government off the backs of honest, hard-working Americans by restoring government to its legitimate, constitutional limits. If you vote for the lesser of two evils and your candidate wins, you still have evil. If you don't vote for liberty, you will never get it.

You seem to have missed the words "for Kerry" in the title of this site.

If I thought a 3rd party canidate had a chance in this election.. If I thought it wasn't going to even be close.. Then sure, as is, I'm too worried that a vote not for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

This man is not a leader. Left with the option of strong and wrong, and weak and not as wrong, there is no correct choice.

As a former registered Democrat and Clinton (term 1) supporter, I fear for the US if we elect Kerry. He's weak and he will make us weak.

We are LESS SAFE TODAY than 4 years
ago ..

I apply the Reagan test for re-election and Bush fails on every count...

As a former registered Democrat and Clinton (term 1) supporter, I fear for the US if we elect Kerry. He's weak and he will make us weak.

It actually really simple...

George Bush is sinister diabolical reeking corrupt constipated old shit...

&

John Kerry is sinister diabolical reeking corrupt floating new shit...


either way current American politics Stink!!!

I was firmly in the camp of not thinking much of Kerry, but...

After tonight's debate, WOW, KERRY ROCKS! We need this guy.

I can see he is a solid guy who will be the steady hand we need to move us forward. Very, very impressed.

Yeah, I saw a solid guy...solid in his lies...he's good at it as he's had lots of practice in the Senate...O'Neill was right when he said that in his previous debates with Kerry, Kerry lied about a lot of facts..not misstated...LIED... try some fact checking on old Leatherface and you'll see how fake he is...and I WAS going to vote for him...

I moved from the anybody but Bush camp into the
Kerry is actually okay camp and Bush is still as retarded as I thought.

Bush certainly didn't stay at a Holliday Inn.. He looked like he missed naptime.

HAHAHAHA! That is one of the best lines I've seen about the debate.

"..didn't stay at a Holiday Inn..." LOL!

A couple of weeks ago there was a letter to the editor in the L.A. Times that said it all. "This is an election between the worse President in history and the worst candidate in history."

The way I see it George Bush has realized the full potential of his incompetence and totally fouled up in Iraq, prescription drug coverage, the deficit, the $150 billion WTO tax "reform" package and the highway pork barrel bill. That's the short list folks.

John Kerry on the other hand is merely a huge mass of unrealized potential for screwing up. If you agree that we need to take the country in a new direction, then John Kerry is your only rational choice.

Bush has already completely screwed everything up and its time to give a new guy a chance to screw everything up in a new direction.

after watching the debate tonight.. my vote is still for bush.. sorry.. i hate kerry and i ain't for him either. and he needs to back off on the self-tanning lotion!

just out of curiousity...what makes you dislike kerry so much that you would continue with a president that puts us in harm's way, billions of dollars of debt, and can't link two coherent thoughts together in a row?

Are you just a dedicated republican, or is there something more? I'm really curious to understand how and why people support GWB.
Thanks.

This registered Democrat will vote for Bush for two reasons: at least I know what I'm getting & my father was one of those who were spit on and called a baby killer.

Kerry was a senator for twenty years, eight of them with Bill Clinton (I voted for twice). I keep seeing Kerry's commercials telling me what he's going to do if he's elected, but if he couldn't accomplish any of his proposals as a senator why am I supposed to believe he can accomplish anything as president?

If Kerry does win, I just want to know if I should invest in Chapstick or KY Jelly. If he can't 'nuance' his way around American politicians, he's going to have to be doing more than talking to the French, Germans, Russians and Kofi.

You idiots that blather on and on about Kerry not accomplishing much in his 20 years in the Senate are letting everybody know that the only source of your news is the Bush website and the funny pages. Now THAT's solid information. Karl Rove is not going to tell you the truth. If you've been paying attention to the fact-checking after the debates, every time, Bush has been shown to be the one who bends the truth more than the average bear, i.e, he's a complete liar. The most they've said about Kerry is that he has exaggerated a bit, or out of context. One has to expect a certain amount of stretching in a campaign and that's all Kerry has done. BUSH is the LIAR. He HAS to lie. His RECORD is so FOUL only lies will make him look better.

Kerry's made some extraordinary contributions which a little research on your part will uncover. So get up off your lazy butts and do some.

Yeah yeah yeah, aside from Clinton, our party only nominates unappealing drones -- think Mondale, Dukakis, Gore. So weird since Democrats in my experience are the smart people, the sexy people, the ones who really get it.

I am not American and I won't vote, but I would like to send you my total support and a prayer: please, guys, do something for America and for the world: kick out Bushie, even if this means voting for Kerry. Please show us that if the Americans can recognise mistakes and get rid of such a president, there's hope for us as well.

A desperate from a Southern-European banana-republic kind of country with Bush's-ass-licking government

Hey, tell us what country you are from so we can offer our stupid opinion on something we know nothing about. Go home.

Thanks for that comment.. spoken like a true Republican. Some of us Americans actually do have European friends (we even have passports). Some of us do give a damn that America's name now means shit for 90% of the world. are we so proud about the death of more than 10000 Iraqi civilians, now enjoying "freedom"? half of this country thinks like a bullying child who thinks he's better than everyone around who won't talk to him, because the concepts of respect and contempt are beyond him. We can't do anything to reverse the damage unless we get rid of the bozo in the White House.

"spoken like a republican"

yeah, spoken like a true republican and like someone who gets off on taking cheap shots and making pointless attacks.

While Bush may not be the best guy, I don't know if I want to vote for someone who looks like a horse.

Nor do I. But I would much rather have a President that bears a strong resemblance to the front end of a horse.

I don't know if I learned anything new from the 1st debate, but Kerry did impress me with his ability to avoid a major gaff and sound and look intelligent (which I know he is, but he sometimes does things or says things that can make me wonder).

Mostly the debate reinforced what I already knew about GW Bush... when confronted with questions that aren't pre-screened and pre-answered by his handlers, he turns into a stuttering, wobbling pile of jell-o.

This gelatinous appearance is partly due to his poor command of spoken English, partly due to his indignity at having anyone question his actions, and partly due to the fact that his positions and past actions are pretty difficult to defend with a straight face.

I had to laugh when some of the Kerry handlers starting talking up Bush as a great debater and how he never lost a debate. Give me a break--the guy wins campaigns, not debates. He just survives through the debates so that he can go back on the stump and cough up sound-bite-friendly lies about his opponents.

I only wish that at some point in the proceedings, he would have defended his invasion of Iraq by saying, "Jesus made me do it!"

Before, I felt that I had no choice in voting for Kerry. Because I would NEVER EVER in a MILLION, GAZILLION MILLENNIA vote for that Monkey-faced-Devil, I had to vote for Kerry. Last night...I was relieved! For the first time, I wanted Kerry to win because he's Kerry. Not because he's not Bush - but actually because he appears to have a grasp of the english language. Not to mention this was the first time I wanted to hear what he had to say. The Democratic Convention speech? PURE SHIT. I turned it off.
But last night, he actually was....well likable is too strong. But certainly intelligent. I'm so used to what a complete and total fuck up Bush is, I'd forgotten what it was like to have a leader who, you know, made sense.
Talk about refreshing.

I don't think anything could be worse than being represented by someone like Bush. I can't elect a president I don't even respect. Bush is a wannabe rancher who belongs back in Texas, Kerry is a real politician. Whether he can get us out of this mess is questionable, but I think he deserves a crack at it.
I look around at the company I work for and see lots of guys like Bush near the top of the ladder, but the guys like Kerry are the ones in leadership positons.

Hey guys, you can get with the tall guy, or you can JOIN THE ARMY!!! They've lowered the standards, you don't even need a high school education, and the QT score cutoffs will now admit people who are classified as functionally retarded. That was signed out just last week--no joke!

And if they can't get enough people that way, we'll be feeling a draft. That's why I'm voting for Kerry--I've got four kids who will go, and I figure I did enough time in service for two generations.

If you think it can't happen, you need to check with a guy named Charlie Abell at the Pentagon. The plan is in third draft, and ready to roll after Nov 2.

You just need to get off your hi-horse....I know Mr Abell at the Pentagon and he says that you people are just spreading a bunch of lies...no such plans...

Whatever... Kerry actually has a brain, and guts. It took guts to come back from vietnam and protest, that was not a popular view at the time. Turned out the he was right, i.e., the country came to agree with him. He is right about Iraq now: 1) the congress needed to authorize force to threaten Saddam; 2) it was a colossal mistake to rush in without the U.N.; 3) now that we are in, we have no choice but to follow through.

All this stuff about "flip flop" and "his convictions change with the wind" is straight from karl rove, don't swallow it.

Both Bush and Kerry love their country, bush is an ideologue with low IQ who needs to cast the world into black and white. He has no option but to be a puppet of the far right wing. Kerry can actually understand a complicated world.

Remember on 9/12, 2001, the entire world was with the U.S. Just 3 years later, it is hard to imagine that all that good will was absolutely squandered. Bush and the right wing made it happen, by their arrogance. This was the Bush the promised a "humble" foreign policy in 2000.

Clinton was both smart, and folksy on American TV. Now the choice is between a presidient who is smart, OR one who looks folksy on TV... easy choice for me. Anyway, Bush's peculiarly American folksiness does not play the same way overseas; Kerry on the other hand is rational, doesn't see the world in black and white, and speaks fluent french for god's sake - who is going to do better at rebuilding our lost credibility overseas?

Obviously I am not a kerry hater, but you guys shouldn't be either. Most of the complaints on the site are very superficial, calling him "treebeard", etc. Who gives a shit about his style if he has the substance? He looked great in the debate last night anyway, cool, always polite, but ready with the biting criticism. I thought he looked almost... Presidential.

Go back to dailykos you stupid Kerryvangelist troll. If we wanted your help we'd ask for it.

"troll", ha... you're just mad he's going to win, and you're for him but you hate him. :-) (But I guess you would be mad if he lost, too?)

Next time, I'll adhere strictly to the rule that all postings on this board must express hate for kerry, but be for him - we wouldn't want to have any actual debate, now would we? :-) My apologies.

anyway, give the guy a break, after all, he is less wooden than... al gore.

Courage? He came home & checked to see which way the wind was blowing and joined the "in crowd". That doesn't take courage just a keen insight on who the popular kids are. He also stated that if we pulled out of Viet Nam only ten thousand Viet Namese would be killed when actually two million were. So much for Kerry's ability to foresee the future.

I didn't know the Air Force could train morons to become fighter pilots. I'm amazed we're not all standing in line for that job.

Guts to come back from Nam & protest?????

I'm his age and back then it was the popular simple thing to do.

He says whatever matches the spirit of the age. This habit began back then.

Amusing site.. "Why *not* the long face", indeed...

I have vaugely leaned towards Bush for awhile.. I liked Clark in the Dem. primary, but his inexperience got to him.

For now, I doubt I will vote for Kerry, but Bush hasn't been great either.. it's hard to believe that out of 300 million people in the country the best candidates we can come up with are these two. I mean, how hard is it to come up with a candidate better than Bush? Not hard, you'd think, but the Democrats failed anyway.

Seeing as my one vote doesn't make a difference anyway (especially in my state), I'll likely be voting third-party.. probably the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik -- not that I'd really want a Libertarian-party run government, but that's the direction I think the major parties should move towards... *less* spending, guys, that's the key.

I, for one, will vote for Bush. I think he's the one who should deal with Iraq. Gee, we can't let Kerry have ALL the fun! Then, after we've totally FUBARed Iraq, we can impeach the chimp and get someone else in there.

I detest Kerry. I despise his wife even more. I cringe at the thought of hearing her whiny voice for the next four years. But, I cannot allow the NeoCons to win this one. They are close to destroying my party. And if Bush wins - they win.

Here's just a few of the GOP atrocities:

-- Carte blanche for perpetual war

-- Refusal to defend our borders from the massive illegal alien (and potential terrorist] invasion

-- Putting the interests of corporate fat cats over the protection of American workers and jobs

-- Ramming anti-sovereignty trade treaties through Congress and supporting the FTAA which will completely dissolve the borders and create an American Union similar to Europe

-- The incessant empty promises to end abortion, defend the institution of marriage; bring our schools out of the gutter; restore the 2nd amendment... on and on for decades!

Well, I've had it! This is one hard-core Republican that will NOT vote for Bush in 2004.

BTW, the Kerry Krowd shouldn't get too excited. I'm not voting for him either. He has spent his entire life in Congress selling out American workers and blowing off American jobs with his 100% voting record for total globalization. NAFTA; GATT; the WTO; Singapore; Africa; etc... and now the FTAA. He is pushing for the New World Order just as fast as Bush.

My entire family will vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. He won't win, but our votes will say to the establishment:

We know the truth about you and we ain't buying it no more!

If Kerry gets in, my hope is that the GOP will realize they screwed up and finally begin acting like Republicans again. With Kerry as Prez and a GOP congress we might actually have a good four years. Lots of gridlock will help to prevent more of their dangerous bills from being passed.

Thanks for setting up this website. I'd like to hear from other true conservative Republicans who are taking a stand and refusing to give your vote to Bush in 2004.

My best to all,
A True Conservative - Mom, Wife, and Business Owner

Right on! I'm probably more of a moderate. I was a delegate for Bush 43 and strong McCain supporter. Have you read "America Alone" by Halper and Clarke? Clarke is with CATO and Halper is a senior editor at American Spectator. It's the most scathing indictment of the neo-cons you can imagine.

I'm voting for gridlock and fiscal sanity. I can't believe where Bush and DeLay have taking the party since the 90's. I've been posting this new Republican motto I stole somewhere:

"Almost as many big spending liberal programs as the Democrats and tax cuts too!"

I don't understand why you say you're not voting for Kerry. If you're going to throw your vote away, why not vote for Nader? The only way to get gridlock and fiscal sanity is to vote for Kerry. With our current political system you can't vote on principle without throwing your vote away.

It doesn't matter what Kerry has done or supported in the past or what he proposes. The Republicans will filibuster his programs and Kerry will veto an extension of Bush's tax cuts.

I'm sure you'll make up your own mind, but for what it's worth, I don't think of it as voting for Kerry, but casting a vote for institutional gridlock. Trust me, the establishment doesn't care about messages. The only thing that counts is raw naked power. That's what makes Bush dangerous. Without the normal checks and balances of divided government our founders wrote into the Constitution, we are at the mercy of the radical Republicans who have hijacked the party.

I haven't gotten "Where the Right Went Wrong" yet, but it's next on my list as soon as I finish "America Alone". Bush has betrayed Republican and Conservative principles on foreign policy and fiscal policy. If he wins re-election he'll take the Republican party into a four year wilderness that will destroy the party for a generation or more.

Should the GOP lose this election (and that could be) they will figure out one very important thing:

In chasing all those evagelical, "Moral" Majority votes to establish thier base (Bush's Christianity on display for political purposes is so innapropriate and phoney) they lost the loyal, educated, traditional Republicans -- those they need for the survival of the party.

With this election lost to a John Kerry, they will have to go back and do a lot of homework and re-inventing. And you can be sure there will never be a Bush or pretend cowboy in the White House again.

This guy is really a dipshit. Hard to be confident in someone who has surrounded himself with that wonderfully successful Dukakis crowd.

I'm an Edwards guy, all the way! At least his first major decision was a homerun...grand-slam, really. If I were advising him, I would have told him to send Theresa off on a world cruise, and had him hangin' with Mrs Edwards, who's huge butt and multiple chins is a enormous asset (pardon the pun)...she looks like American women look....and women relate to her very well.

I also would have told him to have a face lift last year, and some collagen in his lips.

Grandma once told me never trust anyone with beady eyes who blinks a lot (Bush), or a guy with no lips (Kerry).

I wouldn't vote for Bush if Jesus Christ Himself endorsed him.

Michael Zahara/Las Vegas/mjzahara2004@yahoo.com

I haven't seen enough smarts on this board to convince me one way or the other. I've seen crypto-protectionist calling him or herself a "true conservative", a few teenage libertarians, and more than a few misogynists. Hopefully this isn't representative of the swing voter, otherwise we're in big trouble. John Kerry is a decent, honorable guy with the smarts and demeanor to be a good president. Probably not a great one, but after four years of Drinky McDumbass in the Oval, I'll take it.

Kerry broke $240 million of Republican "flip flop" tags in 90 minutes. He's no Dukakis.

I was tepid on Kerry before the debates but
he has earned my faith for the CiC now.

To me his personality to me is like eating a rice cake after being on the survivor island for the three months. He's ultra bland I always tell my friends that he's like cardboard. He doesn't even deserve the right to be called vanilla because at least vanilla has vanilla taste.

Is this a joke site? Sure lots of jokers making comments here.

Republican site?

I think I might end up voting for Kerry, even though I despise him for so many reasons. I think that the Republicans should be embarrassed of Bush, but I think that the Democrats have embarrassed all of America with Kerry and Edwards. I actually hate Edwards more than Kerry; Kerry's just a whore, but Edwards and the terrible things he has done in court disgust me more.

God, I'm so angry that I have to vote for sleazy scumbags.

As a liberal Republican, I think the reason to vote for Kerry is best summed up by several people prior to this post : "The only way to get gridlock and fiscal sanity is to vote for Kerry". I have never really thought about that before. I've been so upset with the unnecessarily large tax cuts for the wealthy and the large spending programs, that I was going to vote for Nadar in protest. But, if you think about it, Kerry, who has been ineffective for the past 20 years, will be opposed by republicans in almost everything he does and the country will return to fiscal sanity. And another poster said it before: sure we all hate Sadam, but is that any reason for 1000+ of our young men and women to lose their lives. Elect Kerry, he'll get us out and let Iraq go back to taking care of itself. And, being from Ohio, my vote might actually make a difference in this election.

Kucinich knows where it's at.

Bush 43 makes Bush 41 look good!

The reason I was so scared when Kerry somehow won the Democratic nomination -- which, I might add, he won with the help of absolutely no buzz from the media and political glitterati, a phenomenon I've never seen before -- was that Bush would actually have legitimate means to attack him. The Republicans are deeply immoral people. If they can't find something wrong with their enemies, they will not hesitate to make things up. But with Kerry, they could actually tell the truth! Why did Democratic voters give the Bush team the chance to tell the truth? At least when they lie, you can debunk their lies. It's a lot harder to convince people to ignore arguments with a basis in reality. He really is a flip-flopper who will do anything just because it's politically expedient! He really is shockingly arrogant (and I'm shocked Bush hasn't made hay out of the "Do you know who I am?" accusations)! He really is out of touch with the nation!

That said, I would vote for anyone over Bush. Absolutely anyone. Bush is more arrogant, more out of touch, and yes, more of a flip-flopper (the Bush team's biggest strength has always been the ability to go ahead with anything even if it might be colossally hypocritical) than Kerry could ever hope to be. Talk about the lesser of two evils -- Kerry is pretty bad, and about a million times better than Bush.

I saw the most disgusting thing on my lunch hour today. The burrito place down the street from my work had two hand-made signs hanging over the counter. One said "W: the President" and the other said "4 More Years". I immediately lost my appetite and vowed not to eat there until after the election.

This is the second time that I've been offended like this in the last week. On Friday night, I saw a girl at Sam's Club wearing a pin that said "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry". Again, I told myself "No shopping here until after the election."

Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but this is ridiculous. Yes, this election is big news, but politics should never be allowed to interfere with business. If I were running a business, I would not allow my employees to display anything political, as I would not want to risk alienating customers. And like many of the rest of you, I keep my opinions of John Kerry to myself. Especially since I live in Texas, the reddest of the red states.

Try being an independent or Republican in Los Angeles...where cries of "HOW COULD YOU?!?!" and "Wow, I guess I really don't know you afterall" greet you if you even mention the word "Bush". Dems and Libs out here are the first to try to demean, harass, ridicule, chastise anyone who isn't like them. This may differ outside LA County, where people actually seem to respect others privacy and opinions...it's sheer torture standing at the grocery store, dry cleaners or in a business meeting and having some stranger just start a conversation by saying "I can't believe anyone in their right mind would vote for Bush. Can you?" I have even stopped talking to friends who constantly harass me with Moveon or other emails yet never bother to ask me how I am doing. Gee, a home-made sticker...you got it easy.

At least they don't think you a terrorist or terrorist-lover, like many Bush ass-kissers, er supporters, think of those who oppose him.

I sympathize completely - I live in Massachusetts! Lots of Kerry/Edwards stickers and signs, but LOTS of cars and yards with nothing. (Think they might be voting for the other guy?) Around here, you keep your opinions to yourself. Constructive debate is not possible in such a hostile environment. And to think that we had to put up with eight years of Clinton!

I'm one of those real-life swing voters. I could vote for Pres. Bush and not feel terrible. To vote for Sen. Kerry puts me at odds with my extended family. I will not vote for the person, but for the wave that the person will bring in -- trusting that cooler heads will prevail over the single individual who nominally wins the election.

Despite the figure-head leader image of our Republic, each elected wave is led by an Administration. Although Kerry falls far short of what most of us would like as a leader, it would be a Kerry Administration. He will be counter-balanced by the opposition and by the leading lights in his own party. Mine will not be a vote for John Kerry, but for a better way, guided by those that Kerry will choose to advise him, that, candidly, will keep him on a straight and narrow.

I'll probably vote for Kerry, but understand, this is no wholesale mandate for what he has said. It's more an act of faith for what those on his coattails will bring.

I am a real conservative. I favor conservation and environmental protection, because as a real conservative I am opposed to breaking things we don't know how to fix. That applies to ecosystems as well as to the nuclear family.

I favor balanced budgets. I don't believe we have a right to saddle the next generation with trillions of dollars of debt.

I don't think we should invade countries that didn't attack us. And I don't think that bombing people into democracy usually works (it didn't in Vietnam).

I don't like Bush's immigration policy (if you can't find an American who'll do your lousy job for minimum wage and no benefits, don't offer better wages and benefits, just bring in a desperate third worlder who will work for peanuts).

So I hate George Bush's guts.

This leaves me with Kerry, whose most notable accomplishment is that he's a very successful gigolo.

God, this election is depressing.

Vietnam is not the end-all be-all of military history. I wish people would remove their heads from their asses and realize this simple fact.

The riddle: How can 50% of Americns not be stupid, when they may actually reelect Bush?

The answer: NOT believing Bush is strong and competent would leave many people vulnerable to fear, shame, identity anxiety, and other bad feelings. It's called denial. It's emotional. Smart/stupid doesn't have much to do with it.

Some haunting new campaign ads:

http://realvoices.org/rv/tv.html

sorry, click here for those ads

I am a research tech and intend to use a glove when I vote for Kerry. Then I will throw it in a Biohazard container. Bush must go. Whatever happened to true conservatism?

The neo-cons invaded and occupied it..

I'm only reluctantly voting for John Kerry, but he's at best my third choice, behind Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.

Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton were a breath of fresh air for the Democratic primaries. Dennis Kucinich fully supports the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual AND transgendered people to marry, and was not afraid of saying so. John Kerry does not, much less mention "bisexual" or "transsexual/transgendered."

Let me get this straight....you are a one-issue voter and the issue is....gay marriage? That's messed up.

And what's wrong with gay marriage being someone's only issue? I'm guessing that the anonymous person who thinks that's messed up is straight and thus already has access to marriage and the rights that come with it.

I'm voting for Kerry, but I can only hope he's better than President Clinton was. Clinton did some good things, saying the right things and banning discrimination in the federal government (except, of course, in the military), but it's also thanks to Clinton that we have Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Kerry also has said the right things for the most part (though his hestitation before the word "lesbian" last night when he was saying that Mary Cheney was right to live as the person she was born to be did make it seem that "lesbian" is a dirty word), and he did at least vote against the Defense of Marriage Act that Clinton signed, but he's also ill-informed enough to have said initially that he supported the state-level amendment that passed in Missouri banning not only same-sex marriages but also civil unions. When he was informed about its banning civil unions also, he said oops, had he known that he wouldn't have supported it. Gee, thanks.

Still, Kerry's better than Bush. If Bush wins, he's going to appoint Supreme Court justices who will be activist in ways his conservative Christian friends will like. If Kerry wins, at least there's a chance his nominees will do what Bush fears and rule that denying gay men and lesbians marriage rights is unconstitutional.

Hey, did I see you at that Willie Nelson thing for Dennis Kucinich in Austin a year ago?

It will be better in the long run for my party (Republican) if Bush loses. He's been a nightmare and hasn't done a damn thing that caused me to join the Republican party in the first place.

Kerry is truly revolting, and it boggles the mind how anyone could say with a straight face that he'd make a great President.

I'm distressed with the idea of Kerry being let into the White House, but Bush has got to go.

Most would agree that the war in Iraq was not what our country was sold beforehand.
What gets me is that we (America) once again lied to the people of Afghanistan about
our commitment. That is plain criminal and will bite us in the butt later (and the ones to
pay will be our children for another war). We promised to rebuild and not abandon
Afghanistan again, like we did after kicking out the Soviet Union. You remember, when
the Taliban came into the void. We even had our children send a dollar to help the
children of Afghanistan, my son did, and I fear that with the distraction of Iraq that my
son's blood may someday be spilled so The Bush/Iraq legacy could continue.

o.k. on a personal level I like Bush a great deal. I also respect him because when it comes to foreign policy he has taken the difficult and unpopular route rather than the easy way. Domestically, his policies have been pretty bad but in the end the President really doesn't have that much impact on economic performance.

Kerry has waffled and failed to enunciate clear positions regarding Iraq. Even after the debate I really don't understand what he stands for.

More worrisome to me is his record of failure in the Senate. Has he sponsored any significant legislative efforts?

Still; lets face it. Bush has not done that well in Iraq and he definitely pushed the WMD reasoning too hard before going in. I would have supported going in for the reasons he is providing now but he is the President and he should have been more effective in leading the country.

The changes in Iraq likely will lead to a more stable Middle East and I thank God Saddam is gone but it just doesn't seem like it was worth $200 billion and 1,000 American lives.

I can't stand Kerry, but I hate W. Because I am left with no other viable alternatives, I have no choice but to support Kerry. I don't think Kerry can do any better in Iraq in the next 4 years, but I just can't in my good conscience to consent W to have 4 more years in office. I simply cannot reward W with another 4 years of Presidency for the mistake of invading Iraq. If my dog was running against W, I'd vote for my dog.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH.

This site is really funny. My two cents: Don't be so quick to trash Kerry, though. Just about everyone's opinion on here was formed through what the media has told you about him. Don't let Fox news form your opinions of anyone, particularly a Democrat. Actually, all of the news networks are much further "right" than they used to be. This is likely from all of the criticism they have recently recieved, as well as a fear from being shut out by the administration if they are at all critical. These times are the most "Orwellian" the great USA has ever experienced. It's like 1984 has come to life, thanks to the Bush admin. Vote these fear-mongering lunatics out before they ruin the world. Seriously.

Way to toe the party line. How inanane. *Yawn*

I am so happy to see all these kindred souls!

Americans generally put their faith and trust into the President especially when it comes to making decisions about war. I did , especially when I heard Tony Blair -- who had nothing to gain from supporting Bush -- say that Bush was right.

Everything we were told is now proven wrong or is fuzzy.

There were no WMD.
There was no Iraq-9/11 connection.
There was no plan to win the peace.
There was no exhaustive effort to bring along allies.

On top of that, the Bush administration has proven that they can not learn from their mistakes or listen to and weigh outside advice.

They did not learn from Afghanistan that you can not invade a country on the cheap with a minimum US footprint.
They did not listen to the chorus of voices saying that they needed to establish security first.

Bush said results matter. Yes they do.

Thousands of soldiers (American AND Iraqi AND "coalition" partners.)
Trillions in debt.
Steel tariffs.
Billions in farm subsidies.
Medicare drug program costs concealed.

My biggest problem is that the Bush team loudly claims as a Bush Adminsitration achievement that they have arrested or killed 75% of Al-Qaeda leadership. Ok, point taken. But it is not the known leadership that worries me. It is the unknown leaders. The Sympathizers. The Terrorist born from the advertisement of an Iraqi invasion. The same advertisement that the Soviets made in Afghanistan that created bin Laden.

The question is do we feel safer today than we did four years ago?
I don't.

Do we trust the President to do what is right in the next four years?

Based on his past results, I can't.

Reluctantly I have to vote for Kerry not because I like him but because in this election I must actively vote against Bush. Nader protest votes, votes for Mickey Mouse etc are not an option this time around.

I worked in the Senate -- I saw Kerry. I don't know what he stands for and the Bush campaign rhetoric that says he was a three term Senator, what does he have to show for it is absolutely on the mark. Does that disqualify him? In normal times maybe, but these are not normal times.

I not thrilled with Kerry, but I believe whatever his worst impulses on spending he will be boxed in Congress and fiscal reality (just like the Republicans wanted by lowering taxes and spending more.) Clinton too didn't have a position that wasn't poll tested, but he was boxed in exactly the same ways as Kerry.

On security Kerry will have to finish the job in Iraq and is not stupid enough to drop security as topic number one. He will instantly have worldwide credibility. Although that doesn't necessarily translate into anyone helping us, its better than where we are now.

Is it not better to vote for the person you want and have them lose then to vote for someone you don't want and have them win?

I'm amazed at the number of people who hate both candidates, but don't bother to see who else is out there. There are other candidates, and in my opinion, they are far superior. No, I don't mean Nadar.

The only thing that both the republicans and the democrats truly agree on is that if there was another major party, both would lose. Through a bipartisan effort, they convinced the public that a vote for a third party is throwing your vote away. And everyone fell for it. HA! It would almost be laughable if it weren't understandable. How many times have you heard another canidate other then Kerry or Bush mentioned on the news? How many third parties were invited to the debates?

I look foward to hearing some of your responses on why you have not thought of voting for someoen else. And no, I will not except "to defeat Bush" as a response. Thanks

Everyone loves a third party candidate... until he opens his mouth. Just like people saying Clark would have been the better Dem. candidate, it looks good until that person is exposed to intense scrutiny and relentless attack from a well-organized opposition. Lots of people liked Ross Perot in his first run at the Presidency, but he gradually appeared to me to be a few cards short of a full deck... and that is not the effect of propaganda from the two major parties. Given enough exposure, even great candidates look far from perfect.

Until God himself runs for the office, I will always be voting for a guy that I don't care for all that much, but seems better than the other guy.

A third party candidate one day will win the job, but he or she better have money to spend and a lot of good sound-bites (or already be a celebrity from movies or sports). Also, if the candidate represents a third party that has a platform completely outside of the mainstream, it won't work. I like some of the views of Libertarians, but there are parts of their platform that strike many citizens as just plain wacko.

k

Vote for Kerry so he can lose close enough for the Democrats to actually steal the election this time.Of course there will be that "interesting " period in which everybody fears Ryder trucks followed by the stabilizing Military Coup.Then maybe we can junk most of the State and start over with just the Constittution.No prescription drug benefit child left behind crap.Yeah! And with temporary no civillian control the Military can really open up a can o' ass whoop on the 'Slammis!

2004 Nominee flaws:

Kerry: boring, not photogenic, godawful wife
Bush: dumb, elected-through-fraud, unapologetically sent over a thousand Americans to their deaths on false pretences, destroying the economy.

Potential outcomes of election:

Kerry wins: we are bored during State of the Union address, possibly have to avert our eyes.
Bush wins: we run out of money and start another couple of wars while the french watch in contemptuous amusement.

yeah, im with you guys: i hate kerry, just CANNOT vote for bush
( it's what the french would want! )

You should try and hook up with the Dole Haters who Voted for Dole from 1996. Can you imagine the debate about how bad politicians are!

ack. I'm being forced to choose between having a country, or having a country worth defending. I can't do it. Abstain, 2004.

Wow. You people are sadly desperate, aren't you. You all remind me of that South Carolina woman who killed her kids so her boyfriend wouldn't leave her.

Ummm...

Wow. Talk about the worst analogy ever.

I was Instashuttled to this website, and it's good to know that there are other people out there like me, who support the Iraq invasion, but just can't stomach Bush for 4 more years. Bravo to the Bush team for Afghanistan, bravo to the Bush team tax cuts. I admire Bush's courage and willingness to take a stand. I also really like Bush's staff: Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

However, I will be voting for Kerry, simply because I don't think Bush has done a good job drumming up support for the Iraq war. Not that I think Kerry will do any better, but there's always a slight chance. I don't think anyone would be so irresponsible as to abandon Iraq to chaos. Hopefully, the Republicans in Congress will keep our government in deadlock on the domestic front, which, in my mind, is the best state for a government to be in.

Kerry has spent twenty years in the Senate, and I have no idea what he has done. He has probably just free-loaded. I pray nothing happens to John Kerry while in office, because his #2, Edwards, is a total deusche. Maybe both Kerry and Edwards will be too busy getting their hair, nails, and tans done to accomplish anything.

The next 4 years will be abysmal no matter which guy gets in office, but at least this way I can blame it on a couple of rich, vain, deusche-bags. It will also be funny to watch the press orgasm all over the place if/when Kerry wins, then slowly realize just how awful the man is.

PS I still think the French, the UN, and pseudo-intellectuals suck ass (you know the type: Starbucks, beret, laptop, all black clothes, glasses)!

Never in our history has the country been presented with two candidates who are so utterly and obviously inept. For shame!

From Big-Time Canadian columnist @ www.davidwarrenonline.com :

Americans remain under extraordinary international pressure to retreat; on the other, the appeal of the Islamist ideology is still growing, and finding its voice through such mass media as Arab satellite television.

If, for instance, a President Kerry were to take the Americans out of Iraq, mission unaccomplished as in Vietnam, we would see a storm-tide of Islamist triumphalism, and the belief would quickly spread through the Muslim world that an aggressive, Jihadist, politico-religious Islamism is the wave of the future.

The same, of course, would happen if a President Bush did that. But everything we know about the man suggests he wouldn't.

One of my reasons to pray for his victory in the coming U.S. election is because he wouldn't. I don't think he fully grasps the dimensions of the conflict -- nobody does. But he knows they are large, he knows the difference between advancing and retreating, and that's really all he needs to know, for now. The rest we learn as we go along.


David Warren

© Ottawa Citizen

All I got to say is that 3 years ago Bush said "trust us" when people protested that they detained an American citizen without charges, a trial, or a lawyer. They said that he was a "very bad guy" and wanted to kill Americans, to which I say "If its true, have a trial, convict him, then kill him". Now, 3 years later, they just let the guy go free, which either means he is innocent or he's guilty and free to kill Americans. Either way, its no good.

In my estimation, the only reason that they can get away with such blatant constitutional violations is because the republicans control all branches of the government, which is why I am voting for Kerry. I urge everyone to do the same, to keep these monkeys in Washington honest since they can't seem to do it themselves.

this website is counterproductive. the bushcountry.org members are laughing at you right now as we speak. you've become one of the topics of their discussion forum, the brunt of their joke. It's indirectly reinforcing their message and indirectly helping their argument There's always something we can find to dislike someone regardless of whether he's our leader, a manager, or my best friend. Of course I haven't always agreed with Kerry's actions, but I have never found myself in perfect consensus with any president in my lifetime or presidential candidate for that matter. If we do not want Bush to be president, let's use our time to try and help remove that man instead. You can work as a volunteer for Kerry's campaign writing letters to the media through the internet if you go to www.johnkerry.com .In between posting insults on this web site, let's take a trip over there and write a letter to your local newspaper criticizing bush.

Yes, it might be unproductive. First of all, let's get rid of this word "hate" which has found its ugly way into the language of the election period.

Do any of us really like Politicians? Absolutely not. Do I hate any? No.

Yes," Kerry will do," eventhough most of us would not identify with a Kerry or under normal circumstances and become his devoted supporters. We are not in normal times.

The Kerry shortcomings pale when examining the consequence of four more years under the current disasterous Administration. And that is why Kerry will get my vote. I have to do the unusual and that means vote for Kerry.

There is a more constructive way of presenting this message than a counter productive and sophmoric "kerryhatersfor kerry." This is a turn-off. And reeks of a tone in the election defined and dictated by Karl Rove (another reason why I could never vote for Bush.)

i agree

Toughen up, Nancies. If you balk at the word the tongue-and-cheek use of the word 'hate' (as in 'player-hater'), then you are a pansy.

pansy? are you one of those military types whose afraid to admit he's gay? Or maybe you caught on to Arnold Schwargeneger's "girly men" line? Only real men can stomach the word "hate."

No, I'm not in the military, and no I'm not gay. Quit watching 'American Beauty,' dumbass. What kind of argument are you trying to make. "He thinks that people who can't stomach the word hate need to get real and grow thicker skin. Therefore, he must be gay." Dumbass.

If this is any indication of what a Kerry presidency will be like, holy shit will we be in for a shitty four years. Format of post:
1. Whine
2. Tell us that voting for Kerry isn't good enough
3. Demand that we do more than we want to

At least right now it's just voting. Next it will probably be taxes. Ugg.

either bush or kerry. to make sure your choice wins, it takes some action. it takes people. its as simple to understand as 1st grade math. how else do people win elections genius?

People win elections because people who need to feel special (aka you) start to hero-worship a mediocre candidate and spend an inordinate amount of time telling the world how great some particular shitty candidate is. Meanwhile, people with half a brain follow the news, do their own research, and come to a conclusion based on evidence, not on a stupid sign that you post in your yard. Get real.

Hey you dumb-ass. These last 4 have been pretty shitty. It can only get better.

in the words of groucho, "i wouldn't join any group that would have me as a member". and when i peruse the KH4K honorees, it reinforces my decision.

what are you talking about josil?

I think that a Kerry presidency will precipitate a civil war, something that I favor.

The right would win that one easy. Guns, and all that.

As a reformed Democrat from Massachusetts, I can honestly say that I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him. I'm tempted to vote for him again just to get him out of our hair, but hesitate for 2 reasons:

First, it didn't work with Dukakis
Second, he's reasonably harmless and inert where he is now

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but ...

Damn you people with your 1000 word postings!!
We're here to be entertained not preached to.

if you're desperate for entertainment, try passing gas and lighting it on fire; even better try it with a picture of kerry taped to your ass.

I am voting for John Kerry because all my professors and friends at school told me I should and because Bush is Hitler and if he is reelected rape will be legal and all the arabs will hate us more.

I don't really hate Kerry. I don't know anything about him. He seemed okay in the thirty seconds of the debate I watched. He's tall and he's got a lot of hair. He kind of looks like a President. George Bush sounds funny when he talks. Like he's from the south or something.

Everybody keeps talking about 9/11. Whatever. That was like sooo long ago. I can barely remember last semester, much less six semesters ago.

The guy I really want to be president is Michael Moore. That movie he made is frickin' awesome. I'm so totally gonna buy that dvd.

Look at http://www.georgewbush.com/

Look at http://www.georgewbush.com/

The thing I do like about Kerry is that he pronounces "Genghis" academically correct. When he was libeling our troops after the Vietnam war, he said "Jhen-juss Khan," not "GEEN-gus Khan" like 99 percent of people do.

I think everyone should vote for John Kerry. By the third year of his administration, there will be a bounty on left liberals. We'll never have to deal with them in politics again!

Are you freaking kidding??!

Kerry is just os cool.

After the war, he told like 2 million soldiers that they were criminal assholes. What kinda ballz did that take?

And he wrote up his own battle reports so he could get medles and then threw them over the white house fense. Thats like so cool.

Before the war was over, he met with the commies from Vietnam in Paris and then came back and said how cool it would be for everybody if they won. And when they won, they killed like 2 million South vietnamese people, and he just pretended everything was cool.

Then he became a politician and married a really rich bitch, and now he doesn't have to do anything but ski and windsufr. That's just so cool.

I want to be just like Kerry.

"Kerry is just os cool. After the war, he told like 2 million soldiers that they were criminal assholes."

yup, a bush supporter has entered the site

I am one of the few who have seriously benefited from Bush's tax cuts and believe me: I have truly been given relief ...I am also a person who, like many, will vote against my supposed interests. I would gladly pay much higher taxes if I didn't have to face the number of homeless people I do today...It so forcably reminds me of the Reagan era (poverty became inescapable then too). I'm not wildly fond of many Kerry's positions but the alternative is untenable.

well said

Everyone knows that if rich people pay more taxes and a Democrat is in office, bums will magically disappear! Meanwhile, rich assholes can feel good about themselves because while they didn't actually take action to solve a problem (i.e. donate to a shelter, work at a soup kitchen, etc.), they can claim they did because they paid their taxes. Hallelujah, we have all absovled ourselves!

And to think someone actually followed up this guy's post with 'well said.' I don't know which is scarier, the guy who posted this thread, or the guy who agrees and found it a well-written, persuasive argument.

I am not a guy, I donate substantially to local shelters and I have volunteered 16 hours a month (not much, but all that time allows) for the last 14 years. I started noticing a marked increase in not "bums" but women with young children since Bush took office. Not satisfied with just my own observations and anecdotal evidence I did a lot of research. What I found is neatly summed up in this paragragh AP:

“Anticipating the release of devastating new poverty and health care statistics, the Bush administration today took the extraordinary step today of trying to bury the numbers. Specifically, the Administration had its top political appointee at the Census Bureau release the numbers a month earlier than usual, during the August congressional recess when many reporters and Americans take their summer vacations. The rescheduling of the announcement also means that the bad numbers will not come out in September immediately after the Republican National Convention, when they have traditionally been released. With the President's economic and health care agenda leaving millions behind, the Associated Press reports, "the statistics today show the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million."

Quit trying to parse words, dude. I don't care what your sex is, and I consider 'bums' to be synonymous with 'homeless people.'

I assert that electing Kerry and paying higher taxes won't take bums off the streets. You come back saying that there are more bums than there used to be. Way to not address the issue. How does it feel to spend all that time researching an irrelevant fact?

Since you are incapable of making anything resembling an argument, let me try to piece one together for you: 1) Bush got elected and 2) there are more poor people, therefore 3) Bush caused more people to become poor. Furthermore, if we undo #3, the opposite effect will happen (people will become less poor). A happened before B, therefore A caused B. Undoing A will remove B. I think that's a fair summary of what you are trying to get at. Too bad it's completely fallacious, and therefore unpersuasive and unconvincing.

Now, if you had said that an economic downturn caused an increase in poverty, then I would agree with you. If you further said that the economic downturn was caused by W, then I would say your were full of shit (once again), since the economy started going south before Bush took office and there are other obvious factors that have influenced our economy (9/11 perhaps?)

Forgive me for saying: I am so thrilled with your passion and interest that I am loathe to say anything to disuade you. I should mention I am a 78 year old lady and you are my first experience on the internet. We disagree, but I admire you.

All politicians flip-flop. If they didn't they wouldn't be politicians, they'd be radio talk show hosts.

I'm from Florida, where my vote is counted then, counted again and again and again and again..............

I didn't vote for Bush 4yrs ago. I didn't trust him then and don't trust him now. It's the look in his eyes that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Along comes Kerry......he changes his mind on issues more than any woman who is PMS'ing. His track record proves that.

If you think our government is messed up now after having Bush in office these past four years, what do you think it'll be like 4 yrs down the road with Kerry in there.

I don't care for either one of them very much, but the lesser of the two evils will get my vote.......that's if Florida doesn't mispalce it when they resort to having to recount again and again and again..........................

OH yeah.....who is the lesser of the two evils I plan on voting for??? Bush....er wait Kerry....no Bush....er wait Kerry............

Some years ago, it occured to me that, no matter who I voted for, they either won by a landslide, or lost by a landslide.
To make my vote count, all I had to do was vote my conscience.
I've voted Libertarian ever since.

GW lied to fo to war and now he lies about how and why he went to war, blaming bad intelligence.

I believe the intelligence report didn't matter, they wanted to go get Saddam and they were going to do it no matter what.

Red Herring, the name they gave to a source of information now discredited, one has to wonder why they gave him that name,
was it because that was what the value of his information was going to be to the public at large, they could have just named him smoke screen.

So, John Kerry and the rest of the senate voted to give the president the power to go to war and now JK says he gave the president the power to go to war expecting the president to use caution and exhaust all diplomatic paths first.....what, with a moron in the oval office and his rabid dog vp, gosh, what could one have expected to happen!

Congress handed Bush a gift certificate and now they act surprised that he used it foolishly.

In my opinion the entire congress is guilty of gross mismanagement, if not out right contempt

I would hope that everyone sees the lapse in the checks and balances system that handing over the power to go to war has caused.

Our senators and congressmen are either lazy, stupid or corrupt, take your pick, it all deduces to the same end.

Kerry should come out and say point blank, that if he gets elected, the first order of business will be to form a coalition of allies to go to Iraq to clean up GW's mess, the mess they gave him the ability to make.

I also believe that the Bushes are in league with the bin Laden, they wanted the door open to push their unAmerican agendas and then they left all the bin Ladens leave the country, when Osama's capture was at hand, he pulled out troops to send them to Iraq, insuring that Osama would get away, now we don't know where he is and Bush doesn't really care.

Vote your conscience.....quite a few GOP leaders disagree with Bushes handling of things, yet when asked they say they are voting for Bush, to me this says that they care more about their political party than they care about America.

And people wonder why I despise political parties, it sets up a my side their side mentality when in reality there is only ne side, our side.

i will vote for kerry because this country needs steady leadership. why do people believe this republican propaganda about flip flops, kerry has never flip flopped on iraq. just look at these two quotes, both from the second presidential debate. absolutely no flip flops, it's NUANCE:


On Iraq:
”Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.”

On IRAN:
”I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.”

Kerry has ALWAYS believed that Iraq was a threat, except for when the president was preoccupied with Iraq, when there wasn't a threat.

I have reluctantly decided to vote for Kerry. I really can't stand him. You could not get a straight answer out of him with a crowbar 9just ask anyone from his home state, and to be completely petty about the whole thing, I don't like the shape of his head. There, I said it. he looks like Mr. Ed's ugly brother.

Having said that, our domestic policy is in shambles and the deficit has once again run amok under the republicans. One last blood-curdling thought......President Cheney.

Fair is fair, he played with our heads, now play with his.

http://www.magicsurfer.com/georgebush.html

There is a great new Kerry Haters for Kerry website... very serious, too. You get the sense the author is being torn apart by his politics.

www.mayflowerhill.blogspot.com

that you are a complete loser who promotes his own blog as if it's something he just stumbled upon...

"hey folks look what i found completely by accident"
...MY OWN STUPID BLOG!

wow, you have a blog! amazing! can i be your friend?

If W lied about Iraq, then you also must believe Clinton, Kerry, and Edward lied about it. All of these people have said essentially the same thing about Iraq at one time or another based on the same intelligence. I, personally, don't think any of them lied. Get a clue.

GWBush's tax cuts bring to mind how the Roman people must have felt when the Emporers gave them bread and circuses.

I've spelled it all out. The article is a little dated, but what the heck.

http://www.wohlmut.com/kevin/KerryHasMyVote.htm

When faced with a choice between two evils, take the one you've never tried before.

Stolen quote alert!

To whoever said Scarborough didn't blame the Republicans in Congress for the massive spending, perhaps you should actually watch the show
-This paraphrase, from outside the RNC, from Scarborough
"The Republicans in Congress are spending absurd amounts and they should be disgusted with themselves"
So he has specifically blamed the Republican Party. Just a point. I think in all honesty that Joe is a pretty fair guy.

He's boring, stupid, repetitive, a bit waffly (but not as much as the conservative media conspiracy makes him out to be), and a corporate slave. But the only advantage bush has over him is that he's not boring.

And I can't vote for him; underage. But I would be voting for Kerry!

I truly think this is BS.
What we should have done was focus on Congress. The President is handstrung any way, and we've seen how one or two lonely Senators can truly kill a President's term.
If we had only put our money in getting the Congress back, we wouldn't have this problem.
If Kerry gets in, what makes any of us think it will make a difference? It won't.
Kerry will do something Kerryesque and we'll have 1994 all over again in 2006, and Hillary will be defeated in the process.
This was stupid.
I'm in Ohio, but I'm not voting for President - I'm skipping over it.
I, like the poster above, think we need to kill the Dem party and rebuild it from the bottom. It won't happen as long as we keep following the pied piper.

Even if I were to give GW the benefit of the doubt and say he actually believed there were WMD in Iraq, he still failed to exhaust all diplomatic means, he set a deadline on diplomacy and flung the nation into a war for illconcieved reasons, hardly the mark of a respectable leader.

Others may have said Saddam was a danger, but they didn't take us into an illegal war, but then Clinton, Kerry and Edward's don't make billions in profits from war, like the Bushes and their friends.

People want to justify the invasion of Iraq by touting how good it is that Saddam is out of office and so we shouldn't care that the president of the USA acted recklessly.

What this brings to mind is the woman from Fla, telling the joint session that she didn’t care that her petition wasn’t signed by a senator, to which the chairman, one Al Gore responded that ‘the rules care’.

Likewise the rules care that we have attacked a sovereign nation, that never attacked our nation, never planned to do so and didn’t even have the means to do so.

This is not to say he might not try to acquire the means, but that is pretty hard to do under the watchful eye of the world.

Just like it is nearly impossible that Saddam snuck WMDs out of the country under the eye of our satellites, U2s and the HR71.

They want me to believe Saddam is a moron, yet they want me also to believe he is able to outwit all our surveillance, which is it, it can’t be both, or is it that they hop-e we are the morons so we won’t ask these questions!

I’ve seen this weeks edition of Real Time a few times now.

The two so called conservatives on the show, in defense of the inaction on the part of GWB, regarding the memo Bin Laden determine to strike inside the US, by flying airliners into buildings, said how could one react to that memo as it didn’t say when or where the attacks would occur.

Anyone besides me see just how ignorant saying that is.

The answer is far too obvious.

Airport surveillance, just like we are doing now .

I think those two so called conservatives should not be working in the media and certainly not holding office.

Why are the members of the GOP always so blind, maybe it is because Grand has turned to Greed.

Bush wants us to live in an "era of multilateralism." what a sissy! he probably has some sort of GLOBAL TEST for such things...

Japan Ruling Party Executive Slams Kerry on N.Korea
Fri, Oct 15, 2004

TOKYO (Reuters) - The No. 2 official in Japan's ruling party sharply criticized U.S. Democratic challenger John Kerry's North Korea policy on Friday and said he hoped President Bush would be re-elected, media said.

The comments come a day after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made remarks that appeared to suggest he would prefer to see Bush win the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.

"I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush," Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe told a radio program, Kyodo news agency reported.

"For instance, Mr. Kerry wants to handle the North Korean issue bilaterally, which is out of the question. We're now in the era of multilateralism," Takebe was quoted as saying, referring to six-way talks involving North and South Korea, Japan, the United States, China and Russia over the North's nuclear ambitions.

Bush has ruled out bilateral talks with reclusive communist Pyongyang, but Kerry has said this could be possible.

Asked by reporters about the U.S. election, Koizumi said on Thursday: "I am very close to President Bush. So I want him to do his best."

Japan's opposition parties attacked Koizumi for his comments, which they said constituted interference in the internal politics of another country.

The prime minister has not only forged warm personal ties with Bush, but was quick to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq and sent non-combat troops to help rebuild the country despite opposition from the majority of Japanese voters.

Koizumi sought to calm the fuss on Friday.

"Because the Japan-U.S. relationship is vital, no matter who becomes the president, I think we will maintain and develop our alliance," he said.

The author of Mayflower Hill, one of the most widely read blogs on the internet, has gotten even angrier at Kerry lately for his cheap gay-baiting ploy at the debate on Wednesday. But he's still going to vote for Kerry. Read the endorsement that renowned conservative pundit Howard Brooks called "the most convincing [endorsement of Kerry] I've read."

The most self-serving drivel I've read in a long time. Is the 3rd person supposed to fool us? Your initials give you away, CBJ.

And stop it with the stupid "gay-baiting." Now, that's cheap. It may have been a dumb, awkward move on Kerry's part (he is human), but there was no mean-spirited intent. Makes no sense.

If you are going to be an elitist left-winger, at least make a logical argument.

one of the most widely read blogs on the internet??? what the hell are you basing that on? nobody has even heard of your blog!
maybe you've never heard of andrew sullivan or instapundit or any of the other blogs out there.
hell, even THIS blog is probably more widely read than yours!


i checked out this idiot's blog: look what he wrote: "this website got its 10,000th hit. Thanks to everyone who helped make Mayflower Hill the most important blog on the internet."

you're as delusional as kim jong il or that baghdadi information minister!

there are blogs that get that many hits a day! "widely read" my ass.

The Greedy Old Party is just upset that someone mentioned yet again that there is a GOP family with gay off spring, if that keeps up people are going to start remembering it.

The thing that amazes me, is that there actually are some gay Republicans, man, are they some confused individuals, even more so than black folks who claim to be Republican.

And people wonder why I think we should have a test to prove one possesses enough knowledge to be voting in the first place.

Most of us wouldn't let someone lacking in knowledge attempt to fix our car, but we let people vote with no knowledge requirment whatsoever, this lacks logic.

Another possible bumper sticker:
VOTE KERRY, DESPITE YOUR IGNORANCE

Great article that spells it all out in easy to understand language.
Kerry Didn't Gay-Bait
He used Mary Cheney to shame Bush for gay-baiting.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, Oct. 15, 2004, at 4:23 PM PT


Dick and Lynne Cheney claim to be outraged that John Kerry mentioned their daughter Mary's sexual orientation (she's gay) in the Oct. 13 debate. Immediately after the debate, Lynne said it was a "cheap and tawdry political trick." Her outrage was spontaneous, and therefore probably sincere. But the vice president, who spoke at the same press availability, glided past the subject and instead expostulated on the "whale of a job" the president had done and Kerry's poor record on defense. That suggests to me that Cheney wasn't outraged at all. (When John Edwards had mentioned Mary in the much nastier vice presidential debate, Cheney had thanked him "for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.") The morning after the debate, Jodi Wilgoren reported that three undecided Iowans—all member of the same family—had thought it "unfair" for Kerry to mention that Mary Cheney was gay. Knowing now that outrage had tested well in a focus group, Cheney chimed in early that afternoon that he was "a pretty angry father," and said it showed that Kerry will "say and do anything in order to get elected."

Why should it be shameful for Kerry to mention that the vice president's daughter is a lesbian? Apparently the logic goes that Kerry (and perhaps Edwards, too), were trying to smear the Bush-Cheney ticket by association. It being doubtful that Kerry or Edwards (or even, for that matter, Bush or Cheney) consider homosexuality to be an abomination before the Creator, the purported aim was to suppress turnout among religious fundamentalists. An editorial in the Oct. 15 Wall Street Journal elaborated:

It's no secret that a large evangelical vote is key to a Bush victory, especially in swing states. Republicans are devoting considerable effort to getting more evangelicals to the polls this year. Many stayed home in 2000 for want of an inspiring issue, or perhaps because of the late reports of Mr. Bush's drunk-driving arrest as a young man.

The Journal, preposterously, accused Kerry of "outing" Mary Cheney, even though, when asked about gay marriage at an August campaign rally in Iowa, the vice president had said, "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with." It was hardly the first time either Cheney had acknowledged Mary's sexual orientation in public. It's been common knowledge for years.

Were Democrats trying to provoke a bigoted response in Christian fundamentalists? I can't see why they would. If I were a fundamentalist who thought all homosexuals were evil Sodomites, I doubt I'd blame Dick Cheney for fathering one. Fundamentalists usually marry and bear offspring young, and are therefore as well acquainted as anyone with the wayward paths that children often take. Rather than blame Bush or Cheney, I'd probably blame the unwholesomeness of that permanent gov'mint in Washington. Fundamentalists resist the idea that homosexuality is genetic in origin.

As it happens, the genetic nature of homosexuality was the very subject Kerry was discussing when he brought up Mary Cheney. Both candidates had been asked, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" Bush had said he didn't know, and then, after some vague words about tolerance and dignity, affirmed his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Then Kerry spoke:

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

I won't dispute that Kerry was using Mary Cheney to score a political point. But the political point was an entirely legitimate one, aimed, I believe, not at fundamentalists but at swing voters with libertarian leanings. Listen, Kerry was saying. This guy knows gay people, just like you and I do. So he must know that homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice." He must know that, and yet he pretends not to know it to score points with the religious right. How cynical can you get? And then he lends his support to a cockamamie Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that even his right-wing-nut of a vice president can't stomach because his own daughter is gay. But even Cheney won't really speak out against this administration's exploitation of the gay-marriage issue to score cheap political points. Some father he is.

We can argue about whether Kerry's posture of moral superiority on this issue is entirely earned. After all, he, too, claims to oppose gay marriage (because "marriage is between a man and a woman," an argument whose essence is "because I say so"). But Kerry's record is more tolerant than his campaign rhetoric suggests, and even his campaign rhetoric is more tolerant than Bush's. Kerry wants to make that a reason for swing voters who deplore bigotry to vote for him. I think that's what made Lynne Cheney spitting mad--she resents the implication that the Bush-Cheney campaign sold out her own gay daughter. But you know what? It did. And you know what else? The evidence that Kerry would treat gays with greater tolerance than Bush is a pretty good reason to vote for Kerry.


Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.



E-mail Timothy Noah at chatterbox@slate.com.

I take all the hurricanes in Fla this year to be punishment for the deceit from last election and as a warning to Fla. not to do it again.

God has spoken.

"nice spin, too bad for kerry most of america doesn't agree with that"

Maybe Renquists cancerous throat will help convince them.

One good spin deserves another.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=169306&page=1

likely voters by 2-1 also call it inappropriate for Kerry, when asked that question, to have noted that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Cheney himself mentioned his daughter's sexual orientation in a campaign appearance in August. . . .

Indeed only among one group, Kerry's own supporters, does a majority (52 percent) say it was appropriate for him to mention Mary Cheney. Among Democrats, 51 percent call it inappropriate; that rises to 64 percent of independents, 80 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Bush supporters.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36114-2004Oct15.html

An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.

Kerry blew it. If he needed to find a convenient gay to point to in his argument, he might have used McGreevey. Or maybe Rosie O'Donnell. Pretending that he knew the beliefs of Cheney's daughter is just too low. Another indication that he is not worth spit.

Unfortunately for Kerry, he FORGOT that he said it was something that gays are born to be -- when backed into a corner and challenged for his use of Mary Cheney as an example, he now says that he "doesn't know." I think that is the same answer that W gave, isn't it?????? He's such a twit!

It's no surprise to me that an overwhelming number of Americans can't think in a straight line (no pun intended) from point A to point B, I've been watching it get steadily worse for years.

That is why we have such goofy campaigns and so many goofy elected so called officials.

Kerry-Edwards Stratagem victorious - Play the Justice card - Script(s)/copy

Sen. Kerry:
- "Elect us along with your Democratic Senatorial candidates 'clean sweep' for control of the Senate and we will nominate and confirm Ralph Nader to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America with the full support of our administration. "I'm John Kerry and that's no bullshit !"
Note: a) Republican million$ spent in support of Ralph Nader to date.
b) Democratic President without one house of congress like painting a target on his back !

- First Executive Order will be to take J. Edgar Hoover's name down off of FBI buildings and cure that insult to citizens and agents of racial and ethnic diversity and color. " I'm John Kerry and that's no bullshit !"

Black, Latino, Student and Feminist leaders:
- "Republicans have always counted on a majority of Blacks, housewives, "you", etc. being too stupid to even bother to vote." This time ?
~ A weary world is waiting !

Hip Hoppers:
- If your Right to Vote has been Stolen & if you care - GET EVEN - Drive ten other folks to the polls to Vote For You 5-10 times come this election day.

Rev Sharpton, Rev. Jackson, Black bully pulpits:
- If you don't vote you're a disgrace to your race.

Billionaires who care:
- Free DVDs/downloads of Fahrenheit 911 -&- a contest for winners
Note: Nationally televised lottery drawings for cash prizes for
contestants who registered to win and prizes doubled for winners who also voted. Come one - come all !

Mothers of America's dead, dying, maimed and wounded:
- For what will your child die in Iraq ? BETRAYED by BUSH

Footage:
- Bush sat as a dumbfound DoDo while America was under attack. Afraid to return to Washington - Bush/Cheney went underground; Some brave wartime President & V.P.?

Kerry when under attack:
- Immediately charged the enemy, killed him dead and saved his men and command.

IRAQ:
- Respectfully the only sane Exit Strategy ~ perhaps to be announced after the election.
- Respectfully thus to delimit our domestic discord, divisions and loss of precious lives.

1) Pull back all USA forces to ONLY secure their entire energy production, pipeline, delivery facilities infrastructure and ports, thus to operate along with any allied forces pursuant to U.N. and international cooperation to be had, albeit our troops under total USA control.

2) Use ONLY high combat paid Bonus volunteer$ USA troops, volunteer allied troops and private contract security forces, all operating under USA control in accord with U.N. and international agreements, to wit:

3) Provide the net/net Iraqi oil revenues to the legal constitutional presiding Iraqi government (whom, what and howsoever duly constituted and in futuro) pursuant to a long term, i.e., 50 to 99 year oil production, security, lease contract, e.g., Guantanamo Naval Base, with the
present Iraqi government; all in cooperation with the U.N. operating under USA control.

4) Thus to more nearly guarantee our allies with stable petroleum supplies had in cooperation with the more stable Arab and Islamic governments hopefully to portend some greater peace being achieved in that region of the world forever ~ amen !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Domestic programs for youth unemployment, education and drug rehab. program. to follow
Note: ~ Without contending for the legalization of drug use ~

Semper Fi-

David Mitchell Basker, J.D.
Attorney at Law | Washington, D.C.
Gainesville, Florida
© October 2004

P.S. The Bush presidents' legacy :--> One term losers

I look at it in terms of controlling damage over the next 4 years. Don't like Kerry. Don't like Bush. But Kerry will get about 18 months fewer to mess things up than will Bush. It will take about 6 months for a first term Pres Kerry to get himself and Congress rolling on his agenda. Add to that the fact that a first termer has to deal with reelection starting the end of year 3. Reelection will essentially wipe out the last year of Kerry's term, because he can't do anything too controversial too close to Nov 2008. On the other hand, Bush already has his agenda established and his people in place. A second term Pres Bush simply continues messing up where he left off at the end of his first term. And he can't be reelected after his second term and there is no way Cheney would run in 2008. So the Bush/Cheney team will have a full 4 years to mess things up with little to no consequence in 2008. I'd rather have a 2.5 year jerk than a 4 year idiot.

Well, while Kerry and congress are getting acquainted, Kerry will have time to try to patch things up with some of our allies and maybe get some help to clean up GWB’s mess.

A working coalition is the only way we get out of Iraq without a draft and there isn’t a snowball’s chance of Bush accomplishing that.

When GWB say there won't be draft all I can think of is GHWB promising "NO NEW TAXES", then of course we got new taxes, maybe Kerry can actually pull it off.

Michael Totten's latest essay, "The Liberal Case for Bush," which Christopher Hitchens linked to, gets destroyed at www.mayflowerhill.blogspot.com

check it out

shamelessly promoting his own blog as if it's not his, even though his initials give it away.

at least be intelligent enough to post anonymously.
man, you're a complete moron.

he claims his blog is the most important blog on the internet!

and earlier in this very threat he says it's the "most widely read" or some such nonsense.

you're just pathetic, dude...

The thought of Cheney being one (weak) heartbeat away from running a situation that is ALREADT amuck is just too frightening!

Rush to war
Prison abuse
Unbelievable deficit
Troops having to defy direct orders
Professional baseball players being shot in the leg while wearing cheerleader outfit & boots
Constitutional amendment to repress human rights
Flu Vaccine shortages
Which 1 can we NOT blame Bush for?

...and Kerry simply makes promises he'll never be able to keep....remember the 1st Bush's "promise" involving no new taxes...Kerry better be careful before he says too much and "hangs" himself and the country...
I sure wish John & Hilary where a choice...(sigh)

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Gridlock!! Let's bring gridlock back to Washington DC where it belongs. It's the way our founding fathers intended. Keep the strong Republican Senate and House and get rid of that Bush guy who wouldn't understand the meaning of the word Republican if he could find it in a dictionary.

It never ceases to amaze me at how amazingly stupid the American voting public can be. This webpage is immensely amusing, but what's more amusing and, frankly, frightening, is that people are taking it very seriously. Even if the webmasters intended this site to be an honest expression of their political beliefs, we must face the hard and fast facts. John Kerry is simply NOT fit for the Office of the President of the United States.

I am of the opinion that, if you intend to vote for a man to fill the Office of the President of the United States, you should ONLY do so based on three essential criteria:

Time
Attribute: The candidate is at the point in his political career as to possess the experience, the evidence of character, and the evidence of capability that are necessary to judge the candidate's ability to be a world leader.

Premise: Only when candidates have a history of performance (of any sort), can we, as the voting public, have any evidence to examine and base a judgment on, for or against, that candidate's ability to perform the duties of President.

Vision
Attribute: The candidate has a clear and concise vision for the State and its well-being, has demonstrated an understanding of the place of his potential leadership within the State and the global community, and the ability to express his vision concisely.

Premise: Only a candidate with a firm and resolute view of the realities of the world can be trusted to make sound judgments in accordance with international and domestic events.

Values
Attribute: The candidate possesses the fortitude of character to conduct themselves in a manner that represents a majority of the public they serve, to be a servant leader, and to be the rock which holds steadfast, even when lashed by the tides of trial and tribulation.

Premise: Only a candidate that has proved themselves to be a person of core convictions and resolute values are able to make decisions that have both consistency and constancy.

The question, then, is does John F. Kerry possess all of these characteristics? Does John Edwards possess all of these characteristics?

I will assume, based on the content of this website, that there are very few of you, if any at all, that believe with any real conviction, that either John Kerry or John Edwards have any of these characteristics. I will also propose that none of you will even argue that either of the candidates mentioned possess all of the characteristics.

After twenty years in the Senate, John Kerry has no major piece of legislation relevant to the troubles facing the nation, if he has any pieces of legislation at all. In a year of political debates, he has consistently changed his position on Iraq, the war on terror, taxation, military spending, and budgeting. In the course of a single debate, he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an threat to the United States (criticizing President Bush for going too quickly to war) and then asserted that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to the United States.

How, then, do you propose voting for a ticket, which, by all accounts, falls short of my three criteria of leadership? Would you knowingly place the Republic in peril by handing the reins of leadership to a weak, possibly unscrupulous, and debatably inept leader who has not demonstrated anything even remotely resembling convictions to any of your own core beliefs, in twenty years of "public service"?

You people are admitting honestly that you feel that John Kerry falls well short of your own measures of leadership and will be, at best, remembered by history as a mediocre, if somewhat ineffective President, and, at worst, a catastrophic failure, whose administration was flawed by partisanship, ineptitude, egoism, and global political appeasement of the worst sort, and yet you fully intend to vote for him?

You blame Bush for the failings of this nation. You are undeniably wrong. YOU, each and everyone of you, are to be blamed. You are to be blamed, because you are afraid of leaders who have the conviction to stand up for their beliefs and lead. You want leaders who, as another poster put it, are able to achieve deadlock, nothing more. John Kerry is the poster child for lack of conviction and represents YOUR core fear of leadership. You are afraid of strong leaders? Kerry is, indeed, your ideal candidate, because that's certainly one thing he will not do: lead.

In the annals of history, we have had Presidents who were both inept and incapable. Their administrations not only were disasterous for the four years of their time in office, the country spent the decade following their failed administrations recovering from the irresoluteness of the failed President.

Now, in time of war and economic fragility, can our Republic afford an incapable leader? The answer is a resounding "NO"! And if any of you still believe otherwise, I would ask that you leave this nation in the hands of your betters, and either emmigrate to other countries where your idiocy is not only appreciated, it is the norm (like France), or you refrain from voting ever again.

Some of you, pretenders to the namesake of this website, will now find fault with Bush's policies. That's all well and good, but resentfulness and spite against one person is not sufficient basis to cast a vote FOR another person who you freely admit is incapable of being the leader that this nation desperately needs. To do otherwise is to willfully imperil the nation in the face of murderous enemies and untrustworthy fellows.

Now, you so called "conservatives" voting for Kerry...

You faux-conservatives that complain about deficit spending, I laugh at you, for you are as clueless and uneducated as the liberal masses who trample upon most of the Rights guaranteed in our Constitution, while trumpetting twisted, liberal interpretations of other Amendments.

First: the federal government, like any business, depends on REVENUE in order to pay for its expenses. The REVENUE of our Federal government is accrued only through taxes levied against the individuals and organizations operating in our nation and the sell of interest bearing bonds. You cannot collect taxes from citizens and organizations unless they are making an income! No income. No taxes. No taxes. No revenue. It's a simple concept, really it is.

Second: our economy, according to our capitalist economic model, is supposed to operate WITHOUT the interference or constraints of the government. As this assumption is supposed to be the rule, not the exception, how can an ailing economy possibly be blamed on any particular political leader or body? How can a thriving economy possibly be attributed to any particular political leader or body? Any effect the government has on our economy is both minor and slow. To imply otherwise is to unambiguously defy the most basic premise upon which our economy operates.

Third: the economy works in cycles of growth and recession. Anyone with even the most rudimentary of education in the fields of business or economics knows this!

Ergo, if your economy slows down: 1) it's not the fault of the sitting president, and there's really very little he can do about it in the short term, 2) tax revenues will fall drastically, since economies slowing down means reduced income for a large number of citizens and organizations within that economy and this problem is further exacerbated by the current taxcode, and 3) there will be a budge shortfall (or deficit), because you can't exactly completely halt your expenses just because your revenues drop. Anyone that tells you different is either lying or is trying to sell you something... or is Democrat running for office.

If you believe otherwise, you are either impossibly ignorant and complacent in the extreme (not taking the modicum of time necessary to research any twenty year period of economic trends in our nation's history) or you are so unimaginably stupid that it is nothing short of miraculous that you have managed to survive to the age of majority and gaining, therefore, enfranchisement without having found a way to remove yourself permanently from the genepool.

What is "conservative" about voting FOR someone that is so entirely diametrically opposed to you political beliefs that your causes will not only go unrepresented but will most likely lose ground to liberal politics?

What is "conservative" about voting FOR someone who you agree is inarguably unprepared and incapable of leading our nation?

What is "conservative" about voting FOR someone that openly states that he will turn over the War on Terror to this so called "global test" of foreign powers and the constituencies thereof?

Don't you remember Kosovo? Don't you remember Rwanda? Don't you remember the U.S.S. COle? Don't you remember Beirut? Don't you remember September 11th?

Still think you're "conservative"?

In the late 90's, Kerry said that Clinton wasn't being aggressive enough with Saddam Hussein. He stated quite publically that he believed that Saddam Hussein was both a threat to the United States and that he should be removed from power as soon as possible. Now he says that Bush moved too quickly and that the war in Iraq was not only costly but not justified. Or does he? Four years ago, things were developing too slowly. Or were they?

Is Flip-Flopping and moral relativism "conservative"?

Two last things:
Putin stated recently that, should Bush be defeated in this year's election, the organizations of terrorism, mainly Al Qaeda and their evil conspirators, and the rogue nations that support and finance terrorism, will declare victory in the War on Terror. Their efforts to affect public opinion in America by trying to create the image of disarray and chaos in Iraq will have been successful. Even if YOU don't believe this personally to be the case, you must acknowledge that there are those among your fellows and those among the Democratic ranks that state the "chaos in Iraq" as being a primary reason for their voting out of Bush.

So even if YOU don't personally feel that their efforts have effected your vote, your vote will aid those who have been affected, and, as such, you will be voting a surrender to the forces of chaos and terror in the world.

And, if Kerry is really against "forcing his own values onto other people", why the #$!#&#$* is he running for the most powerful political office in the world???

Finally, to end things on a note of wry humor:

Follows - The Oath of Office of the President of the United States of America, normal version:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Follows - The Oath of Office of the President of the United States of America, Kerry version:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States (if and when it coincides with the popular opinion of the "undecideds and disgruntled"), and will (except when it hurts my image with the voting public or my reputation among foreign powers) to the best of my focus group and political pollster's ability, preserve, protect, and defend the liberal interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which is mutable by the current political climate and the wishes of influential foreign powers."

There is no greater sin than self-deception.

You are my best friend man.....i have been siting here listening to these SOB's go off about how he is so un-fit yet they are goin to vote for him....at first i thought it was a joke...anywayz, i could not have put it better my self, there needs to be more like you.

1) Government spending grew significantly during Bush's presidency. Bush had a significant amount, if not total, control over that spending. You're right, the president has very little to do with the economy. He has everything to do with government spending WHICH IF YOU TOOK A SECOND TO SHUT THE FUCK UP WOULD REALIZE IS WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO.

2) Bush made a fatal stategic error by invading Iraq. It was obvious to me before we went in. It's obvious to everyone from Pat Buchanan to Colin Powell. He believed Chalabi, an Iranian spy, over the State Department and War College. That was the worse military mistake in the history of America. The number and diversity of the war's critics are becoming considerable. When Howard Dean and Pat Robertson agree on something, it's worth considering.

3) John Ashcroft continually overrides state's rights, personal privacy, and civil liberties, usually because he believes something is a 'sin.' I don't think Ashcroft, a man who thinks dancing is a sin, is fit to run the DOJ. He is busy arresting folks for selling waterpipes and dildos while the enemy prepares the next attack.

4) THE MOST IMPORTANT: The Likud party and Mosad have a frighteningly persuasive influence over the Bush administration. The global test is bad. The 'Likud test' is worse. And real. Until the US can act independently of Israel, we will continue to be the target of terrorist attacks. To avoid having to confront this, Bush uses vague moralistic language. We are fighting a 'War on Terror' (how you fight a war on a tactic I will never know - what's next, the 'War on Artillery?') because they 'hate us for our freedom' (why didn't they attack Scandanavia or Holland or Switzerland - those countries are much more liberal than America?). They attacked us because we unilaterally support Israel. Bin Laden seeks to create an Islamic empire in the middle east. So how did we respond? By destabilizing a secular dictator, we gave Bin Laden a great place to start his empire. That was friggin' brilliant.

Kerry will leave the military policy to the soldiers. Where it belongs.

It never ceases to amaze me at how amazingly stupid the American voting public can be.

On a morning talk show a noted sports figure said he was voting for Bush because he's a real down-to-earth guy, he lives on a farm in Texas, not a mansion in Nantucket. Then he spouted a simplified version of the above talking points. Yeah, right. The Bushes are good down-home hard workin' folks on their oil farms. I also read an article in World News & Report that Bush started that swagger and crooning in college to piss off his liberal associates at Harvard and Yale. Why are voters so easily buying into this notion?

GET REAL!!! There is no greater sin than self-deception.

Look at the record. Look at the issues. I don't see how a sane person could vote that complete failure back into office for four more years.

This site is great. I don't hate Kerry, but the neo-cons are very dangerous people. The republican party needs to better define itself between the true conservatives and the neo-radicals.

I would rather vote for Bush now and Hillary Clinton in four years. If Kerry is elected for two terms Hillary will never run. I would much rather Hillary get elected than Kerry!

As a European reading these comments I am somewhat heartened. Don’t believe that we all think you are incapable of correctly deciding who should hold the position of the leader of the free world. Our news reports show the “Average Joe/Mary” disenchanted with the choice on offer and trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. This website illustrates the internal struggle you are having and I applaud those of you who have managed to truly question your party loyalties. A phrase like “lets take the Republican Party back from GWB and the neocons” shows me that apart from the blindly faithful, on both sides Democratic and Republican, are hordes of people who want to re-define what their party stands for. And unfortunately neither of these candidates seems to personify this ideal.

Naturally it is in our interests that you choose the man who at least acknowledges that Europe has a part to play in how this planet is run, and we understand that your prime concern must be your domestic situation.

Wooden and patrician though he may be, a man who coincidentally marries heiresses, Kerry is the man who will do least harm over the next four years and then hopefully a great candidate will have emerged by then.

The world needs another good American President. Good luck to you all.

Thank you for your comments on Europe. A balanced, thoughtful, well-reasoned argument I thought - with nice broad strokes. Who needs nuance (a French word admittedly, unlike entrepreneur) when you can tar all and sundry with the same brush.
Incidentally - have you ever been to the world outside your borders? - you seem to know alot about it! (Bless).

Yes, actually. I have. Eat that! BUSH WINS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Go to the search engine of your choice and search:

Bush Family History

You won't like what you find.

Saturday, my wife and I voted early here in San Antonio. When we got home, I felt like crying. My wife said she felt like taking a long shower. What had life come to? Voting for a liberal Senator from Massachuetts? I tried to rationalize my decision with a sports analogy. I'm the coach that pulled his star quarterback for a benchwarmer in a desperate effort to jump start the offense. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Coach

(insert whistling sound here, crescendoing upward, getting louder and louder)

BOOOOOOM!

And the F-Bombs come out.

Let me start up saying, this is the last time I'm probably going to check this site out. I've said most of what I felt needed to be said, and this guy has kept the wait for the time when some idiot posted an idiotic reply filled with wild propoganda pretty damn short. The only thing missing is the whole oil greed argument.

So, here we go.

Point #1: About government spending

Well, you start off strong by proving that you are an ignorant baffoon. Congratulations, moron. You have no idea what the U.S. Constitution says, do you? I will endeavor (that means try) to use very small words for your benefit. Bush does NOT control government spending. Congress does (the House of Representatives does to be exact). All the president can do is propose a budget that the House of Representatives then cuts from, adds to, pads up, and otherwise alters as they see fit. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Point #2: In regards to a fatal "statetic" error

Sure, he made a fatal "stategic" (sic) error. How many stars do you wear on your uniform? Do you even wear a uniform? No, I didn't think so. It's amazing how many people take Monday Morning Quarterbacking to the next logical step: Armchair Strategists. Just because you don't agree with the strategy doesn't make it incorrect. Would you rather the terrorists were fighting unarmed civilians on our airplanes, or would you prefer them to be fighting our well trained fighting men and women of our armed forces in their own homelands? Which makes more sense?

Point #3: About "civil liberties" and John Ashcroft

Michael Moore would be proud! You don't "think" that he's fit to run the Department of Justice. And why not? Because you don't agree with his religious views? State an example of when the DoJ has supposedly trampled on someone's civil liberties. What if I disagree? What if I feel that someone that plots to aid foreign powers in the wholesale murder of his fellow citizens should have his citizenship revoked? Last time I heard of something like that, it was called TREASON.

Point #4: About Jews controlling American politics

And the truth comes out. You're an anti-semitic, hate-monger, kook conspiracy theorist. No wonder you haven't read the Constitution, you're too busy pouring over grocery store tabloids, reading about alien abductions, wolf boys, and MiBs.

Finally, notice that none of your points have anything to do with what I posted. In an election you are supposed to vote FOR the person you think is going to do the best job, not vote for someone that you admit is both incompetent and incapable. Not one of your points addresses or responds to the main theme of my essay. Did you drop out of high school before the whole "reading comprehension" part of your education or something?

You're not a Republican. You're a moron. You cry about civil liberties, and you're going to vote for someone that has the WORST Senate record in regards to Second Amendment Rights, save for perhaps Kennedy?

And this, my friends and fools, is the type of people that are voting for Kerry. He can get elected by saying he has a "Plan", but did he actually explain his "Plan"? His lips moved. I heard words coming out of his mouth, but did you actually LISTEN to what he said? Most of it is already being done. Some of has been tried and won't work. The rest is just so vague, it could mean anything at all.

Morons.

Sad little person. This is the other scary dimension to the far right wing: The hatemongers. This is the group that likes to spew an assortment of unflattering labels like Liberals, communists, TREASON, and morons. This is the group that generated the SwiftBoaties. The whole purpose of your posting here is to insult your fellow conservatives and Americans (and European visitors too). Just like your candidate, you refuse to listen to an opposing point of view, without throwing around personal insults (like - "unpatriotic").

There's old saying that you can attract more flies with honey than shit. Try it sometime. In the meanwhile, why not start you own blogger - hatemongers4bush.org (the domain is still open)

"Morons"

One of your conservative friends was just hounding us so-called liberals and commies for using the same kind of language. Maybe conservatives, commies, and liberals aren't so different.

I would like to vote for John Kerry because he's too ugly to put on any American currency, and that will help allay my concerns about future inflation.

Let me just state this: I am an ardent Conservative. So all you liberal schmucks just glance over this one as you are probably too judgmental to care. Or please respond. I love frying people.

Anyway, my problem is this. Kerry has terrible values, terrible personality, a kind of crappy fiscal policy, BUT HE IS STILL BETTER THAN BUSH. How the hell did this happen? Surprisingly, Bush is the only president elected on a year with a zero that hasn't died in office or be the target of an attempted assasination. WHAT THE HAPPENED TO ALL OF YOU PSYCHOS? Make with the killing already. You guys are seriously getting unreliable. Jodi Foster needs love too. On a side note, terrorists...suck.
God even Cheney at this point is almost preferable. The man may be as corrupt as hell, but at least he's smarter than the monkey already in office.
Damn you Fat Cat Elitists, we Conservatives need to get our party back in shape, whether is have to suffer through a gridlock or not is irrelevant, what is irrelevant is making an amendment banning Oil Barons and all Texans from office.

Just wanted to say I'm really pretty liberal, but have known and respected honest, thoughtful conservatives. Liberals and conservatives can have fruitful, interesting discussions, if both are willing to listen and assume that the positions the other person is taking is the result of something besides a knee-jerk response or brain-dead repetition of the party-line (I've seen both liberals and conservatives who either assume their opponent is either immoral or stupid simply because they're either L or C--and I've also known knee-jerk non-thinkers of both the liberal and conservative persuasion). I also think that their are a lot of things that most Americans can agree on (for example, terrorism is bad, political freedom is good, etc.). I think we all want to live in a good country, in good neighborhoods, with good schools, little or no violence or other crim, enough jobs so that someone looking for work can find a job--and preferably a job suited to his or her talents and abilities--, great healthcare for everyone, no homeless people dying of hypothermia in the winter, and so forth--how we get to these things that most of us value, and which are more important to us as individuals, are things that need to be hashed out--and I think that's where most political differences lie, at least for about 80% of the issues that we face everyday. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. :-)

"

"Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. :-)"

And a very valuable 2 cents, indeed. Some food for thought.

Amen. Both the liberals and the conservatives seem (for the most part) to really want to build strong communities, but the schism is on how to go about doing that. The conservatives seem to think faith and family are the way, while the liberals seem to lean towards public schools, internationalism/multiculturalism, and social programs, among other things. Neither side trusts the vision of the other....but if we don't hang together, we'll hang seperately.

This is not to say that we should all be in lockstep; healthy dissent is sorely lacking in America today. Seems though that there are things that we can all get together behind. Things that Bush, notably, doesn't seem to represent. "Family values" for him seems to mean trashing gays, and his faith is of the "either you're with us or you're against us" variety.

The liberals are never going to trust any of Bush's community building efforts, but the flip side is that the conservatives aren't going to trust a liberal. Look at how Hillary Clinton was pilloried for her "It takes a village..." when she was advocating a very conservative, "family values" attitude towards responsibility for the young. The liberals reacted the same way towards Bennett's "Book of Virtues" not because we don't agree with the moral impulse behind the book, we just don't trust the source.

Gotta say, I'm one of the KH4K. I couldn't understand how he was winning the primaries (they seem so long ago). I hope he wins, but I can think of a couple moderate Republicans I'd rather vote for than Kerry--and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Dem. I practically choke everytime that I hear Bush & Co. call him the most liberal senator. I don't think he has enough fire or committment to be considered even somewhat liberal--or even to be considered a respectable moderate. I just hope that if he's elected, he surrounds himself with smart, able people who care about their jobs--working for the American people and trying with honest hearts and minds to try to do what's best for the country, not some group of their buddies. I also hope the next administration understands the difference between taste and morals, as well as doesn't act like anyone who doesn't buy the current strain of self-serving "religious" rhetoric is both amoral and unamerican. Ban the Bible, indeed! Sorry--that campaign tactic in W. Va. and Arkansas claiming that if the Dems were in the White House, the Bible would be banned really irks me. Not as much as crazy Ann Coulter, though . . . . So for all the above reasons, and despite some of them, I'll be voting for Kerry on Tuesday.

I'm alsmot tempted to be a KH4Ker after reading this stuff. I would love four years of gridlock between the White House and the Senate. I've always thought this is the only way (aside from a line-tem veto) to control spending. But we need to be consistent on Iraq and resolute in the WOT so I'm stuck as a BH4Ber.

And what about K's wife? EGADS!!!!!!

Think about it this way. Kerry's an opportunistic gutless, pandering poll-ogling suck-up for what reason? He wants to be President. If he actually becomes President, what else could there possibly be left to bribe him with? He already has all the money in the world.

So then he'll put his pandering, opportunity seeking, statistic-addled brain to good use actually doing the bloody job. The man's a policy wonk who knows scary amounts about the workings of international criminal and terrorist networks. He might even get the Europeans back because he'll cut them whatever sketchy deals they want. I want a pragmatist, dammit, not some ideologue with no grasp of reality and even less grasp of effective management!

I'm entering (maybe I have to start it first!) the Best Disgusting Kerry Description contest. Please come read my blog and see if you can top me. For example, Kerry after the August Swift Boat Assault:

I'm an equal-opportunity insulter. I can't stand the way, when you ask John Kerry a question, he rears back and shows the whites of his eyes, like a spooked horse. You know that behind those eyes he's rapidly calculating how to trim and triangulate his answer so it won't offend any possible constituency. Actually, now the look in his eyes is more fatalistic, like that of a moose that's been hamstrung by wolves that are circling in for the kill.

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/09/i_am_your_undec.html

A portrait from the 3rd debate:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/10/split_screen.html

My reason for deciding to vote for him anyway:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/10/a_queasy_endors.html

And how shitty I feel after making the decision:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/10/decision_fatigu.html

Osama is the newest Kerry Hater-for-Kerry!
Welcome, OBL!

It's not just a Bush/Kerry thing. It's that the entire Bush administration seeks to conquer the world and at home to do away with whatever social programs that are left intact. Look at the Republican agenda for the 21st century - they wrote it! - and it's available on the internet for all to read. Are you all not more frightened of fascism than Kerry? I am.

What impresses me most about Kerry is how cautious he is about every decision, how many people he wants advice from , how long he takes to act on anything and then is still almost always wrong. You cant teach, its pure instinct.

What impresses me most about Kerry is how cautious he is about every decision, how many people he wants advice from , how long he takes to act on anything and then is still almost always wrong. You cant teach, its pure instinct.

I recently moved back from Germany,and feel they took any freedom away overhere.No more people protesting against the current regime.I am scared to live here,not because of terrorists but of the big brother.The coorperations have done a nice job,already everything under controll,that i doubt it that any other person then f....Bush and his Jewish Helpers will win the race again.This country is so corrupt.The FBI is monitoring all the little guys even here in this forum,to make sure not a single protest gets out.Let me finish in german: Bush und seiner Gang gehört der Kopf abgeschnitten,damit die Welt lernt das den Armen die Zukunft gehört.

Hey -- this site is called Kerry Haters for Kerry, not Jew Haters for Kerry. Let me translate your final message: "Bush and his gang should have their heads cut off, so that the world learns that the future belongs to the poor." Lovely! Antisemitic and a communist too! Be warned that a girl who wrote on her LiveJournal "Dear God, please kill Bush," got a visit from the Secret Service! The webmaster should delete this drivel for your own protection.

by the way -- he's right about big brother watching the web, though. When I "endorsed" Kerry (far too grand a word for my wee bloggie) and was linked to by a better-known site, two of the visits I got pretty quickly were from the domains IRS.GOV and DOJ.GOV.

I am not a Jew hater or a hater of any kind. But the facts point to them as far as where there money is coming from. The republicans are being used to further the Corporations agenda and the Bush's and the Cheneys are not patriotic enough to tell them to take a hike. The republicans have sold out our Country to a few Corporations and could care less about true Americans. Of course nobody should have their heads cut off, but we need to cut off the corporations access to OUR Goverment before it's too late.

I have a 12 hour day and qualified to vote by mail and did so a couple of weeks ago. I'm a pacifist and WOULD NOT vote for Bush, but I REALLY could not bring myself to actually fill in the little oval dot next to Kerry's name. So I took a deep breath and quick filled in Straight Democratic. What a choice we're were given. I look for Tuesday night to be as circus fun filled as in 2000!

Here's my reason for voting for a candidate I hate. Yes, George Bush will protect this country better. Yes, a steadfast, unwavering resolve is more suited to victory in the war against terror. But Bush is easily the most meanspirited conservative ever to run for office. Here's an example. Gay people, of which I am not one, finally get their chance at equality, having won the jurisprudential equivalent of the PowerBall in Lawrence v. Texas. The "American way" is to wait while the courts take their sweet time to decide if gay marriage is constitutionally required, as matter of Equal Protection. If they decide in the affirmative, I'm sure we can all live with that. Once again, it's the American way. But what does George Bush do in response? He incites millions of ultraconservatives to enact an exception to the Equal Protection Clause, for the very first time in history. The ultraconservatives may not know better, but Bush should -- he's the President. This country is special, with moral authority, in large part because of the Equal Protection clause. George Bush would do what no terrorist could do -- destroy the promise of Equal Protection, and with it, the promise of America. John Kerry didn't do this, George Bush did. That's why I'm voting for Kerry. Signed, Carol in Phoenix, Arizona

VOTE FOR KERRY!

Simply because hes not Bush.... thats the best thing i can say for him.... Kerry is going to hurt this country... but bush is going to get in a war with every country, and draft everyone 18 to 24 to fight his war. so.... hurt the country (Kerry) or burn this country to ash(Bush) its your choice america!

wo0t gotta love the lesser of 2 evils

Went to a Kerry rally in Santa Fe on Saturday and realized that not only do I despise Kerry, I despise his wealthy, white, smug, pancho-clad, middle-aged female supporters (when one yelled at me for talking, I considered distributing pins: "Another Fat Old Bitch for Kerry." I myself am a lissome and glamorous young woman.) Then today I voted for Kerry. If he wins, my head may yet explode.

To clarify: Not that I have a problem with wealthy, white, smug, pancho-wearing, middle-aged women as such (some of my best friends...! etc). It's their infinitely condescending conviction that their worldview of War Bad, Environment Good makes them the moral and intellectual superiors of half the country. A Kerry win that delights these people will be a bitter pill indeed. Go Kerry!

Kerry, ugh.

I've found this election to be something along the lines of having to chose between cleaning out the dog run or the cat box.

However, I have two main reasons for voting for Kerry. First, I cannot abide by the sort of misleading that took place that got us into Iraq when we had a lid on the trash can there and Saddam the Grouch was cooped up and going no where. We should have finished the job in Afganistan before we went off playing with our guns somewhere else.

Second, a Kerry victory keeps Hillary from even considering the White House for at least 8 years. EIGHT FREAKING YEARS. How freaking beautiful is that! If that's not enough to vote for the most ineffective future president in over 20 years, I don't know what is.

KERRY TO CONCEDE! KERRY TO CONCEDE! OHIO IS BUSH COUNTRY! EAT THAT, MICHAEL MOORE! EAT THAT BUSH HATERS! WE GOT 51% OF THE POPULAR VOTE! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT!

And you Republicans that crossed the line to vote for Kerry, just because you didn't like Bush. STAY THERE! WE DON'T NEED YOU ANY MORE! LOOK AT THE HOUSE! LOOK AT THE SENATE! WOOT!

WHOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

WHOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

WHOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

EAT THAT, OSAMA BIN LADEN! WE'RE COMING FOR YOU! KISS OUR ASS, CHIRAQ! AND YOU TOO, SCHROEDER! IF YOU NEED SOMETHING TO DO FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, TRY TAKING THE "GLOBAL TEST"!

(I'm the guy that posted "Get Real". How very sweeeeeeeet it is to taste victory. FREE AT LAST!)

Oh, yes.. I also posted Europeans... and the various criticisms.

Yes, I'm gloating. I'm gloating, because, after all of the lies, stupidity, and childishness you idiots have been throwing at Bush for the last two years, I'm savoring victory that is ever so much sweeter, liars, idiots, and people that SHOULD be adults, are suffering!

JUSTICE IS SERVED!

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Oh! And yes, I didn't proofread these posts. I DON'T HAVE TO! I'M TALKING TO (mostly) LOSERS! WHOSE (sic) THE WINNER? BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

And, just so you conceited guys and gals know, I'm going to keep my Bush stickers on my car for YEARS to come. Oh, yeah!

FOUR MORE YEARS!

Dear anonymous,

When you've finished ejaculating, I suggest you clean up and go down to your local Army recruiting station and volunteer to fight in Iraq. We need good, strong haters like you against the REAL enemy.

i.e., put your body where your mouth is. Go kill us some terrorists.

Bush better take a good hard look at the fact that at least 49% are not happy campers. And that doesn't take into account those people who really didn't want to vote for Bush but were afraid of Kerry. Half of the country does NOT think Bush is doing a terrific job.

Yep, polls are what matter - look at how Clinton ran his legacy into the ground following them. I think at this point the Bush approval is low 30's, but that's still higher than Lincoln's was after Gettysburg. Lincoln had the entire South against him, oh and France, and half of the North (Google Copperhead Democrat). Yep, Lincoln should have run on the basis of polls are opposed to what he felt was right. His legacy was certainly damaged by doing it his way. Godspeed Lincoln, Truman, Bush... you guys had the stones to stare down the effete liberal filth the pervaded your ether. Imagine if the Civil war was halted - how long would slavery persist in the new Confederate Republic? Would Texas reabsorb into Mexico? Lots of questions there... How about if Truman hadn't nixed a hero, McCarthur - would we have faced a coup, or what about Truman's decision to use the Atom Bomb. My only disappointment with Bush is that he doesn't use true diplomacy and tap out Tehran instead of letting the bootlickers in congress snivel to MSNBC and CNN.

Interesting theme...

It makes one laugh!

The British company, Cox & Kings is sometimes said to be the oldest travel agent in the world, but this rests upon services that the original bank (established in 1758) supplied to its wealthy clients. grand canyon tours