Here is your chance to convince me

[vernard]

Do your absolute best to convince me that your candidate should be President. Please specifically list how your candidate will be different than the other cnadidates that are running and why that decision is the correct one.

Do not, I repeat do NOT, comment on other folks entries. I just want to see what You think in your own head.

Comments

Michael Badnarik, Libertarian

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

A vote for either Bush or Kerry is a vote for more of the same, and reinforcement for whichever one gets into power to continue making things steadily worse and worse. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for breaking the stranglehold of the Two-Headed Statist Party, for a return to American freedoms and Constitutional rights, and for an end to the continued metastatic growth of Big Government. I'm not going to talk myself blue trying to convince you; go to his site and read his platform for yourself.

International vision

[revelstone.livejournal.com]

Here's a vague outline of why I'm voting the way I am.

I don't like either candidate on domestic policy. I'm a small government conservative, and neither of the candidates are. I give a tiny edge to Bush because he at least talks about an ownership society and real reform of social security.

But the reason, I'm voting for Bush is largely about international vision. Listening to the debates and some of his speeches, Kerry largely talked about international alliances as the key to security. Mind you, they have their place, but I think the promotion of democracy and freedom on the world is much more likely to bring us peace - and prevent nuclear terrorism. All the alliances in the world won't clean up the Middle East and Africa. Additionally, the oil for food scandal demonstrates the limits of alliances. There will always be countries motivated by greed/opposition to the US that will limit was alliances can do. Democracy and Freedom might do the trick in the long run. And Bush is a firm believer in their promotion. I guess that I'm partly a neo-con :)

I also don't think Kerry is as committed as I would like to the idea of cleaning up rouge states and international terrorism. Granted, it's a judgment call, but in the end, I'm voting against Kerry because I don't trust him on these issues. If Lieberman had gotten the nomination, I might well be voting for my first democrat since Dukakis.

[unwiredben.livejournal.com]

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel he will govern in a more responsible manner. The Bush adminstration is well known as being very secretive and oriented around making decisions and then justifying them as best they can. They don't seem open to testing ideas, seeing what works, and changing their minds when new evidence indicates that past decisions were wrong. I think Kerry will be far more pragmatic and open to exploring a whole range of ideas. This may mean that we don't stay focused on one objective, but I think it will lead to us making better decisions as they will be based on data and experience and revised regularly as part of an "optimization" process.

On specific issues, I tend to favor the positons I see from Kerry. He isn't trying to win votes from the religious right, so he doesn't have to pander to anti-scientific and isolationist views.

I think Kerry and his people see the war on terrorism as a process, one that requires not just military action, but a comprehensive set of steps that works to correct the problems of the Middle East that have led to us being villanized by the populace there. Terrorism is for the most part a tactic used by stateless movements, and the way we fight it isn't by occupying other countries but by winning over the people of the region, and that's a slow but important task. The fact that Bush is tied in with the neoconservative dreamers is a big drawback -- yes, they have a great vision of the middle east as a new haven for democracy, but you can't get there through war and occupation.

[vacare.livejournal.com]

can i refer you to one of my own entries? just to save some copy and paste? it is from my own head, promise :)

[dorsai.livejournal.com]

As I'm sure you know, I'm pulling the lever (er...tapping the screen) for Bush.

The reason for this is that Kerry just doesn't get it. From his own statements on the campaign trail and in the debates, it's pretty clear that he places his faith in global bodies, international summits, grand alliances, and the like. He simply does not understand that that kind of thinking is what gave us a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, and 9/11.

I've finished reading the 9/11 Commission report, and one of the things that jumped out at me was that senior elected and appointed officials, in both Clinton's administration and in Bush's, recognized the threat posed by al Qaida and by bin Laden, but were too stuck in the traditional ways of thinking and acting to actually do anything about them. Any number of times, plans and proposals were put forth from within the CIA, the military, or the administration itself to deal with these issues, but the senior leadership was always too afraid of the possible consequences to proceed. That's how I see Kerry - he will be too afraid of upsetting his electoral base, or the UN, or the Europeans, to take bold action when called for. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not elect someone who has, in essence, promised to repeat them.

None of the Above

[arasirsul.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'll be voting for Badnarik. I don't necessarily think Badnarik is the best man for the job (after all, there's, what, 150,000,000 people in the country eligible for the job?). I'll be voting for him because I'm meta-gaming the Presidency.

Overall, I think that in many ways, George W. Bush is as honest as politicians get. What he proposes, he does because he honestly believes it to be the right thing. He has done about the best someone could have done with the crappy hand he was dealt. But he'd like to have done more, and that's what scares me. He'd like to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, which I think is an idea bordering on insane. He'd love to give us all more tax cuts, knowing the quickest way into our hearts is through our wallets-- but he doesn't want to reduce spending; indeed, he seems to want to increase it.

But then there's the other side. A lot of people are unimpressed with Bush-- he's got all the problems I listed, plus there are a number of people whose sole issue is the War in Iraq. So, if you're at the top of the Democratic Party, trying to decide who to run, and you're against pretty much all the things Bush is for, you've got to think that you could run a trained monkey and win. What pisses me off is the trained monkey would be a better candidate than John Kerry. Kerry wants to be president because he loves being in the spotlight-- and he will do or say anything to get there. And even worse: he's not even honest about it, and hasn't been for decades. Now, I'm okay with the idea of going to Vietnam, finding out first-hand that war sucks, and then coming back unhappy. But when you're still drawing a paycheck from the United States Navy as a Lieutenant (an officer!), you simply don't go joining peace protests. When you go on record as saying something (and voting for it!), don't turn around and reneg just because you think it'll get you elected. The man has no integrity, and without that, what else can he have?

So what it really boils down to is it doesn't matter who wins-- we either wind up with a guy who's got no concept of finance and too much desire to legislate morality in office, or a guy who we know is slimy. And these are our two choices, out of all the natural-born citizens of the US over 35. How did we get here, where we know one of two people are going to be President for the next four years and either way, we're screwed?

And the answer is: The two party system. I have no delusions that the Libertarian candidate will be elected president. I know, that as far as the outcome of this year's election goes, I am "throwing my vote away." But I will cast my ballot anyhow, because if enough people vote third party, next year, people will take notice.

Sorry...

[thanophile.livejournal.com]

Between the two of them, I'm honestly thinking I'll vote for my neighbor's dog. Why?

- He's outspoken, knows where he stands on the issues. ("People in the parking lot!! That's wroooong! Arf-arf-arf!" "Delivery man next door!! That's wroooong! Arf-arf-arf!")

- He's very diplomatic and has a very refreshing foreign policy. ("I shouldn't pee on my own tree--I'll pee on that one over there in the neighbor's yard instead!")

- He's capable of truly uniting people under a common cause (We all hate the dog equally. It's a bond.)

Yup. Snuffles gets my vote.

[sabrina-pandora.livejournal.com]

Sabrina Pandora for president.

We know what she's hiding, and we don't care.

Let's make politics fun again!

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

If I could wave a magic wand and have anyone be president, it would probably be amanda42. Libertarian bordering on anarchist, and very very smart and tolerant. She would do everything she could to cut government down to the bare minimum, and make it possible for the private sector to do what the current semi-socialism does, only much more efficiently. But she's only 31.

Of folks who are actually eligible: Dave Ross - former talk show host who has had his finger on American and world politics for over two decades. (Currently running for Congress, though not my district.) Jesse Ventura - (former?) governor of Minnesota, and probably along with the next guy the most honest politician I know. Jimmy Carter. Now, there's a statesman. Very underrated, and with his post-Presidential experience, he would be very well suited to be back in the hot seat. But Rosalyn won't let him, and he doesn't want the job. More's the pity. Howard Dean: Another guy not afraid to stick his neck out. The best of the candidates that started the race. Alas, Kerry's bankroll snuffed him.

George W. Bush is a traitor to the Constitution. He has destroyed freedom of long-distance travel in this country. He has destroyed the right to privacy, the right to representation in criminal matters, the right to open and speedy trials, and lied to us in order to send our young men and women to die where they had no business being. (Not that Saddam Hussein is any better - he's not... but there were much better ways of dealing with him. His father knew that.) Osama bin Laden's men destroyed the Twin Towers and killed thousands. George W. Bush's men have been responsible for over a thousand more of our trained soldiers - folks we put a considerable investment in - and the destruction of our freedom.

I want that back. That's why I'm supporting John Kerry. Not because I like the guy atall.... but because he's the best chance we've got to oust the current tyrant without a shooting war.

When I was a kid, I pled allegiance to a republic - a nation with liberty and justice for all. If George W. Bush gets re-elected, that nation will cease to exist. I have no allegiance to an Empire, a nation where the head of state leads by force and fiat, and the Senate is a sham and has no control over the Emperor. I may stay and work to restore the Republic; I may choose to go elsewhere, and participate in politics where freedom comes first. But I Will Not Tolerate Empire.

Delenda est Carthago

[veyasar.livejournal.com]

I'll be posting a three part series on my thoughts about the election...

what I'm thinking in my head...

[uxmal.livejournal.com]

I'm less than enthused about kerry. I'm not informed about third party candidates. But VA is coming back into play (not quite "battleground", but not quite a republican cakewalk either..). I'm going to do my electoral bit to kick Bush out.

At the moment, voting for anyone other than two major party candidates is a vote of protest. This was OK for me in '92 - I registered a protest vote for Perot. This year, in VA, the vote is close enough that small numbers of votes will make a difference. So... no libertarians or greens or anything - and no write-in for cthulu.

Reasons to vote against Kerry:
- his record on fiscal discipline isn't great
- he's been in Washington for 20 years, and has a pragmatic/liberal voting record consistent with 1) getting reelected in MA, and 2) performing as a democratic party player. he plays the game, he's an insider
- his military service and war record are.. what they are.. I can't buy the "shameless limelight hunting" argument. The times and the circumstances were hard, and I think kerry acted as well as he knew how - I'm not enthused about his service record and subsequent judgements..
For those of you unfamiliar with my views on politics.. the above is faint damnation - but any praise I have for kerry is faint as well.

Reasons not to vote for Bush:
- Ashcroft
- Court nomination track record - particularly with 1-3 supreme court slots coming up in this term
- US Patriot Act (and ashcroft)
- Abysmal record on fiscal discipline. largest swing in deficits EVER
- Homeland Security Act (and ashcroft)
- Withdrawal from ballistic missile treaty - among other rejection of international agreement/discipline, such as World Court, UN Elections Commission, UN Human Rights Commission (well..they tossed us out on our ear..), &c. This administration has NO THOUGHT for international cooperation and mutual commitment
- Military "restructuring" (and Rumsfeld) - very idealogically driven, without reality checks BEFORE field implementation
- "enemy combatant" status - repudiation of Geneva Rights protections, review by US courts, and disregard for constitutional protections... the entire premise behind this rape of civil liberties and any checks, balances, or reviews is a BIG step down a slippery slope.
- invading iraq with minimal troops (and Rumsfeld) - iraq was used as a proving ground and experimentation ground for Rumsfeld's pet theories.. putting at risk US troops
- economics and corporate scandal - OK, the raft of economic crud that ran rampant in the country the last 4 years hasn't REALLY been bush's fault. But I'll still hold it against him...
- "doctrine of preemption" (and the corruption of colen powell) - the US has declared itself trigger-happy. then proved it. what a way to alienate the world, and make them frightened enough to feel a deep need to arm themselves to the teeth..
- bush's energy policy - another 4 years of effective R&D wasted.. did bush & co. think this insulting piece of crap document produced in secrecy (though apparently largely by energy executives) actually fooled anyone? this had to be one of the most insulting and offensive maneuvers this administration has managed to produce - and that says a lot
- WMD in Iraq (and the corruption of Colen Powel) forcing colin powel to spout patently misleading intel to the UN security council, and using flawed and twisted intel as a basis for an undeclared war (congressional force authorization not-withstanding - NOT the same thing as a declaration of war...) was vile.

OK - so on balance, we've got an imp we don't know enough about (but don't feel terribly good about), or GW Bush (aka the mindless puppet of satan). My current thinking is that I must contribute to ejecting GW Bush from office. Oh - and ousting W from office has the added benefit of firing Ashcroft (good for the US), Rumsfeld (good for the military - and me as a DoD employee), and relieving the corruption of Condi, Colen, Greenspan, and the other-than-evil cabinet (and lower) appointees.

Kerry uses the the line "for an america that is strong at home and respected abroad". I'm not sure he can deliver those things, but I've seen Bush go out of his way to denegrate those values. I'm voting anti-bush 2004 - by casting a vote for kerry.

[st-darwin.livejournal.com]

Kerry is a member of the reality-based community.

That should really be all you need to make up your mind. But he's not a bad speaker (no Teddy Kennedy, not even a Robert Reich), and he's awfully centrist for a 'liberal'. Even Nixon, glorious bastard that he was, founded the EPA and tried to establish a guaranteed national income Great Ghu only knows why Kerry isn't running on his record investigating BCCI, opposing actual terrorists even when his own party united with the opposition to stop him.

Fundamentally, this election is a referendum on whether reality still matters in american politics.

(I voted third party last time - but I live in a state where the Electrical College makes my vote fairly irrelvant anyway. I don't mind the EC so much, but we need some way of making representatives more representative. PS - Hi Vernard!)

[veyasar.livejournal.com]

Vernard,

I'm still writing my opus. :) But you should consider reading this. It's the best summary I've seen for the fence sitters. Either way, don't forget to vote!