My post then:

"Most Americans make their decisions out of fear more than anything else...fear of money issues, fear of aging, fear of our "foes", fear of the unknown...and voting is usually a matter of fear..."Am I afraid enough to take a chance on someone new?".  When it comes down to it, too many are punch-drunk with nationalism or religion or greed to acknowledge their fear that we really ARE on the wrong path, and Bush will win.

However, I will never stop doing everything I can in the hopes that I might be wrong.  No one would be happier than me if I was."

Sad to see it looks like I was probably right...as the link shows.




-- Modified on 9/10/2004 9:29:29 AM

I know you want this to be a Bush vs Anti-Bush election, but why vote for Kerry is he's just like Bush?

Despite the rhetoric of "two americas", the only difference in tax policy is that Kerry is for a 3% increase for top earners.  

Iraq, Trade, Outsourcing - there is no difference between the two.

There're differences on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but if you look at the polls, it's something only 10% of people base their votes on.  and frankly neither candidate talk much about social issues.

and in spite of what anyone says, there is a ripple effect that flows from the indivdual in the Chief Executive position in this country.  To a certain extent, it permeates regional politics, local politics, business, the military, international relations, social commentary, entertainment, people's attitudes, and the general mood of the nation.  Think about the difference regarding adult entertainment when you compare the mood of things during the Meese Commission to the Clinton years.  That is just one example.

Plus, the thought of seeing that smug smirk for another four years is so nauseating to me, I miss H.W.  

The abortion issues is huge.  If you don't think there are way too many people on the planet- Drive on the 405 at rush hour!  But the problem is that Bush's withdrawal of support for world wide family planning won't bite us in the ass for about 20 years, when all those unwanted an unsupportable babiesd have grown up impoverishing their countries more, but more importantly putting lots of extra angry young men on the streets.

Can you imagine if Latin America and Asia were as angry as the middle east?  Now that we've kissed of Europe, who will be our friends/alllies?  Apart from the people we pay off?  And won't the pay off have to be exponentially higher?

But Americans never look further than next week, do they?

These guys are far apart enough to make this election huge enough.

I will vote for John Kerry because he is clearly better than George Bush on the environment. I also believe Kerry to be better on things like human rights and civil rights. Kerry is also not an extreme fundamentalist Christian, and Bush actually says, out loud, that God speaks through him.

Is the environment the most important issue in the election? No, at least not in the short term. Personally, I believe the war in Iraq is the most important issue. However, I'm not sure there is a real difference between Kerry and Bush on that issue. I remember that Johnson started the Vietnam War using false claims almost as blatant as Bush's arguments about why we should invade Iraq. Johnson lost the next election and Nixon enlarged the war. I'm not at all sure that Kerry won't continue and even enlarge the Iraq War. No important distinction that I can see on this issue, unfortunately.

After the Iraq war I believe that the next most important issue is the economy. We are clearly on the verge of becoming a fascist state. (I am going back to the original definition of fascism as "Corporate Feudalism" and do not intend to imply that we are becoming like Nazi Germany--although I don't think a comparison of Karl Rove with Joseph Goebbels is completely far fetched.) When you look at the private parties at both conventions (ordinary delegates not invited) it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the politicians of both political parties are essentially owned by the corporations. Kerry would probably try to go more slowly than Bush but the middle class is going to continue to shrink. I don't see Kerry as another Roosevelt who will go against his class and turn things around. Even if he wanted to do so he would be stymied as long as both houses of Congress remain in Republican hands. Not much hope of change without public funding of elections like they have in Arizona. Again, no clear distinction between the two political parties except the Democrats have better rhetoric (as far as we consies are concerned--see link for definition of term: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/spacemerchants.htm ).

The next president will almost certainly get to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices. At least if Kerry is elected, Ken Starr is unlikely to make it to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, all you have to do is look at the sales of the "Left Behind" series of books to know that an awful lot of Americans would like to see Ken Starr on the Supreme Court.

Can Kerry win the election? I don't know. The country is obviously bitterly divided. Perhaps more divided than at any time since Lincoln ran for president. I don't believe that Karl Rove has ever lost an election and with Bush as president his power is immense. (One of the saddest sights of the Republican Convention was seeing John McCain praise Bush after what Rove did to him in the North Carolina Republican Primary in 2000.)

Even if more people vote for Kerry than for Bush it doesn't mean that Kerry will win. As Stalin said, "The people who vote determine nothing. The people who count the vote determine everything." And our votes are counted by computers using secret code from companies owned by Republicans. The problem goes far beyond the touch screen voting machines receiving all the attention. A paper trail only matters if there is a recount by hand. (There is an excellent article on the problem in the current issue of "In These Times" which, unfortunately, I do not have with me as I write this.)

As one progressive put it, "It's now or never." If Kerry doesn't defeat Bush the Democrats are going to be mostly irrelevant for at least a few decades. (A real economic crash on the order of the Great Depression perhaps triggered by oil would probably be enough to get the Republicans out of office.) If the Democrats are irrelevant our future will be mostly determined by the winning side in the current deep split in the Republican Party. Franks talks about this in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/qid=1094712999/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-4134432-0184813?v=glance&s=books ). The split was very evident on Now's coverage of the Republican Convention. There are the "moderate" Republicans (known to the base as RINOs, i.e., Republicans In Name Only) of which Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good example, and the "conservative" Republicans (known to the rest of us as the extreme fundamentalist fringe). The choice will be between a fascist state and a fascist fundamentalist state.

If Kerry loses in 2004 and the Republican moderates win, Arnold Schwarzenegger will probably be "elected" President in 2008 (Constitutional amendment required). If Kerry loses in 2004 and the Republican conservatives win, George Bush will probably be "elected" again in 2008 (Constitutional amendment also required). If they can't change the Constitution to run George they will probably run Jeb.

Have a nice day.

Mathesar

You had me up to the point where you were talking about where you were talking about the Republicans controlling the counting of the votes.  Please!  If that was the case, then why would the Republicans ever loose???
As far as what you probbably meant in a popular election contest where Gore did get more votes is that I would remind you of Article II Section I of the Constitution & as an addendum the Federalist papers as to why the founding Fathers didn't want the direct election of president.
And with all do respect - you have got to be kidding me on altering the Constitution.  To refer to the Founding Fathers again, they made it very difficult to amend it.  it is NOT a living breathing document as some people would attest.  If it were it would have been amended many more times & the ERA amendment would have passed long ago.
Thanks for your comments though & your work on the data reports.

And your point was?

It's just a document.  And the "Founding Fathers" were just people.  They were not infallible and they had almost no technology, having started the process right about when the Ind Rev was starting.

I knopw they made it hard to change. doesn't mean we ought not change it, just that we have to go through a lot of hoops.

soul of the Republican Party! Arnold Schwarzenegger is a true Ronald Reagan Republican. Republicans from all parts of the republican spectrum love Reagan and they love Schwarzenegger.  Including George Bush!

Bush publically states he believes in God and that he prays for guidance.  Does that make him a nut? Are believing Jews nuts? Are believing Baptists-ok never mind-are are all believing Christians nuts?

Now, regarding the environment, What has W done to hurt our environment? I think we outta drill up there in Alaska.  There's lots of good oil up there on that patch of frozen tundra.  The only thing we'd be killing is mosquitoes.  We'd replant the Tundra plants that get smashed during construction.  I'm all for that pipeline.
Plus, the only thing that matters now is the war on terror.  John Kerry is a chicken and the terrorists will become emboldened and Kerry would be running to the UN for permission and he'd never get it.

When JFK was assassinated in November, 1963, LBJ moved from VP to President.  LBJ ran for himself in 1964 and won his own full four year term.  However, in 1968, he decided not to run for a second full term, even though he could have under the guidelines of the Constitution.  Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic candidate for President in 1968; he was the one who lost to Nixon that year.

I can't realistically see either altering the two full term limit for being President or allowing a non-American to run for President ever becoming amendments to the Constitution.  Getting 3/4ths of the 50 states (38) to ratify such amendments would seem practically impossible to accomplish, mainly because I can't see the state legislatures ever considering such measures, much less passing them; especially one allowing a non-American to run for President.  That would be the most extreme breach of foreign invasion our country could allow (so sorry, AAAHNULD).

If either of them has any remote possibility for serious consideration, it would be repeal of the two term limit.  In fact, wasn't there discussion by some about proposing a repeal of the two term limit a few years ago so Clinton could run for a third term?  I think even that proposed amendment would struggle for support, because there is still a large enough split of the American political landscape that either the Democrats or Republicans would have enough pull to shitcan the proposal from whichever party attempts to initiate it.  If the country ever becomes significantly tilted either to the left or the right, then it might have a chance.  I don't think the country has reached that current situation.  And hopefully, it won't.

Americans are too smart ... Bush will not get re-elected, no matter what he does.

that won't happen to allow Arnold to be Prez.  So that is kind of a silly comment.  Nazi America?  Alarmist rhetoric, but hardly an illuminating argument.  Third, do you really believe such a conspiracy theory that the electronic voting will be manipulated by "Republican companies" to steal the election?  If you do, then maybe the medication should be adjusted.
 Otherwise you wrote a well-reasoned and well-written post.

What I find fascinating is that a president who hardly had a mandate from the people from the first election, who is portrayed as being stupid and unsophisticated, who lead us into a war that most think wasn't justified and whose cost in dollars and lives increases everyday, and whose economy during his term has not been stellar, may very well get re-elected.  Polls don't look too bad for him.  You would think with all the above he would be trailing double digits.
 Anyone care to explain?  And please don't use the elist argument that American voters are stupid.  I don't think that is true, and it really doesn't shed much light on the situation.

Most of them are highly twisted.  But, still, your point is well taken, we will see.

have a good head for details. Now, pathetically, I have trouble remembering where I put my glasses."

I guess the same applies to me.

Mathesar