Was thinking about that-  an interesting point.

What is more interesting though is that I don't care.  I see the present admin as the worst of my life time (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, BushII) and would gladly vote for a overbaked prune danish with botulism rather than Bush.

You always fail to defend your boy while attacking Kerry.  Yes, your points have a touch of validity.  
So I applaud your attempts to attack a pretty pedestrian candidate.  But defending Bush's record is pretty laughable.

I might consider letting John Wayne Gacy rule from prison before I'd vote for Bush II!  And I think he died recently(not sure just a feeling I read it somewhere)! Still a better choice!

"If you are not outraged- YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!"

-- Modified on 10/29/2004 4:07:06 PM

I am not voting for John Kerry.  

I am voting against George Bush.

I will not say who I will vote for on Tuesday because that is none of the business of anyone here other than me.  But there are several reasons why I would vote for Mr.Kerry (if I vote for him) and not against Mr.Bush.

1. Being from New England, I have seen that Mr.Kerry has done an effective job of defending the interests of the region.  I think that this is why New Hampshire is in play when that state has been reliably voting for the Republican presidential candidate.  You may pan defending the interests of your state and region, but that is, in my view, the first responsibility of a senator from a state.  When Mr.Bush ran for President after being governor of Texas, the assumption that he asked us to make was that he would perform the same job for the US as a whole that he performed for his state.  The first job of a governor, by the way, is to take care of the interests of his or her state, otherwise that person is not a very good governor.  Mr.Bush has a spotty track record of leading the entire US.  When a baseball manager has a spotty record and the team is sharply divided, that manager gets replaced by one that could potentially solve the team problems and make them winners again and repected (or feared)in their league.
2. Mr.Kerry did not sit by as Commander of our Armed Forces and allow Bin Laden to escape from a deathtrap.  Mr.Bush, in my view, did.  President Lincoln fired General Mead when Mead failed to persue the Confederates after defeating them at Gettysburg.  Mr.Lincoln correctly guessed that if Mead had persued the Confederates, that his army would have dealt a death blow to the Confederate Army and ended the Civil War without the loss of life that would occur because of Mead's failure.  No one has paid a price, that I can tell, for allowing Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.  Mr.Kerry would deserve a vote, if only to see whether he would make a bolder decision in such a situation.
3.Mr.Kerry appears to have a more realistic approach of dealing with the issue of terrorism.  There are those here who will snicker at this, but an effective plan with dealing with terrorism involves police action as well as military action.  Military action must be accompanied by a realistic and well thoughtout plan for occupying any region that is take from terrorist or supporters of terrorists.  While is is a real possibility that Mr.Kerry will not be able to do any more in Iraq than what has been done, just eliminating the string of policy mistakes concerning that country alone would be beneficial.  Germany solved the problem of the Bader Meinhoff terrorists and their coordiantion with the Red Brigade terrorists of Italy through police action and free exchage of information with Italy.  Mr.Kerry has stated that he would involve our allies in helping to permanently solve the problem of terrorism, he has been consistent on this point and, in my opinion, he is both right on the policy and right to be insistent about it.