If the election was today - who would I vote for? and why?
 

If today was election day who would I vote for? Those of you who know me know that I have very strong leanings toward the Republican party but, I vote for the person and not the party. Would I vote for George Bush and is he the best of the choices I could make?

Bush has done several things that I really don't care for and because of these things I have looked very seriously (and will continue to look) at all of those who are candidates and those who might jump in at the last minute.

Dean - Howard Dean is way way way to far left at the moment for me to give serious consideration to at this time. I know that at this time he is courting the extreme left and the ultra-liberal vote. I am sure he will come back toward the center a bit if he is the candidate because I don't think any candidate can count on receiving all of the party's vote - any candidate is going to have to have at least part of the other partys votes and the votes of those who consider themselves to be neither Democrat or Republican and it really makes no difference at this point what name they follow. Dean appears to be the man to beat at trhe moment - by election time this might not hold true but right now, he seems to have the momentum. Gore has endorsed Dean and Dean has accepted that endorsement. In my opinion, Dean should have told him thanks, but no thanks. I have no more of an idea what the real game that the Clintons and Gore are playing than anyone else has. I have no idea why Democrats are cowtowing to either one of them. But, at this point that too is irrelevant. I would not vote for Dean without Gore's endorsement and Gore's endoresement and Dean's acceptance of it put them in the same shoe. This takes Dean off my short list.

General Clark - I have no idea what he stands for and I'm not sure he knows either. He seems very Clintonlike and I don't care for Clinton at all. Clark seems to flipflop depending on who his audience is - I want to know where he stands period. Not what he is saying at this instancefor public consumption. I don't think I could vote for Clark.

Joseph Leiberman - This man appears to be an honest and a good person. He appears capable, knowledgeable, willing and able to become a good president. Is he electable? I don't think so. I am in no way anti-semitic but I don't think a person of the Jewish faith could be a successful president at this time. The current and ongoing problems in the Middle-East, in my opinion, would make it impossible for him to deal effectively with them in foreign affairs. Is Joe Leiberman a man that I could vote for - Yes he is, but, I don't think he can be elected or even become the candidate and if he were elected he might not be able to survive in office.

The Clintons - While not an announced candidate they are definitely in the running. Not just no but hell no! It makes no difference who's name is on the ballot you get them both. Enough was already way to much of them. I think Hillary is a political joke played on the state of New York. They've had absolutely no representation from her in the Senate - she represents the State of Clinton and that has absolutely nothing to do with New York. Can a woman be elected president? I think so. Would I vote for a woman? Sure, if the right woman was running for the office. There are many females who are very capable of running this country - perhaps better than some of the men who have tried - but, could a female, at this time, be a successful president? I really don't think so and for basically the same reasons I gave for Leiberman - the Middle-East. The perception those in the Middle-east have of women would make it all but impossible for a woman to be accepted in their minds as an equal - much less as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

Gephardt - I believe that, in my opinion, this is the only Democrat I could support at this time. I don't know much about him but like what I've seen. He is knowledgeable, experienced, and appears to be an honest and decent man. I believe that these are traits a president must have to be accepted and effective. Would I vote for Dick Gephardt - under the right conditions I could see myself doing this.

George Bush - As I said at the beginning of this rant - I am not 100% happy with George Bush. I like George Bush. George Bush speaks the same language as I do and while some of you dislike or do not understand Texan, I do understand exactly what he is saying and I think if you listen to what he is saying you will also understand. You may not like what you hear but you will understand - he means exactly what he says - there is no hidden meaning, there are on insinuations, there should be nothing at all that can be misinterpreted - he means exactly what he says. Is saying exactly what you mean good in politics? In foreign affairs? In diplomacy? No! It probably isn't. It's a cryin' assed shame, but saying exactly what you mean doesn't work as well in these areas as does double speak - politicalese and dimplomaticese seem to be what is required. Tell them what they want to hear and can interpret in any manner that makes them feel good at the moment.

George Bush has been a good president. There is no one, anywhere on earth, that does not know that if he says he's going to slap you you're going to be slapped. Is this good in my opinion? Yes it is. Is this bad in my opinion? Yes it is. Can you have it both ways? I don't think so. Which is the best of the two? I think I would much rather him be what he is than be wishy-washy like Clinton. If Clinton had balls much of the difficulties we now have would have already have been dealt with.

I do have a real problem with Bushes courting of the extereme religious factions. I have absolutely nothing against anyone's religion and consider myself to be a Christian but this has nothing to do with government - it is a personal thing - it is a way of living - a code of conduct - personal rules --- I have nothing against his religious belief influencing how he conducts himself - his morals - the way he lives - his honesty and his sincereity. I do not believe that George Bush will lie to anyone. Many of you will take exception with this statement but I honestly believe it to be true. He has perhaps made honest decisions based upon false or flawed information but I don't beleive he has purposely mislead anyone.

If the election were to be held today I probably would vote to reelect him president for the reasons I have given above. Your turn.

I don't have much time so I'll be brief.

Bush has pissed me off with his creeping socialism, (as compared to the overt kind) and I'm not happy with it. In the long run this won't even help the Republicans much as it has pissed off part of the base, and all the dems will do is say we need MORE hand outs to buy the votes back.

That being said there is NO democrat canidate who I would trust with national security, and for that matter only a couple I would trust to watch my pets. Right now that is the most important issue in the world (national security, not my pets) and I am pleased with GWB on that count. As such he gets my vote, its to important right now.

As for the dems the only one I'd vote for is Liberman and only if it was the 'true' Liberman, the one that was around before the 2000 election. He had a pretty moderate stand, and was willing to do things against the party like like school vouchers. After he was the VP canidate he tossed all that out for the left wing line.

I have to disagree with your opinon of Gephardt. He is way to deep into the unions and a liar to boot. His favorite thing to talk about is his dad being a union driver and how his dad would tell him how important the union was etc etc. Only thing is the rest of his family says his dad hated his job and hated being forced to be in a union to do it. Gephardt has many stories like that, that don't hold up. He also whined about the tax cuts and how it was only for the rich (like hell, I'm not rich and I got 600 back, thanks George) blah blah blah. Then when the economy perked up he said it was due to what the democrats put in the tax bill. He is a double speaking, flip flopping, asshat.

I don't really like anybody who's running.

I wish John McCain were running. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I really respect him and I think he's a good leader with a good grasp on long-term planning and systems thinking.

I sure as hell am not going to vote for Bush and his Four Horsemen (don't EVEN get me started), so I'm leaning toward either Clark or Dean.

I'm not big on Gephardt. Here's part of the reason:

Gephardt's abysmal attendance record link.

From Link

Show up for work! This is shameful for any government worker. I would love to show up 16% of the time at work.

Dean is too left for my tastes, but I think he'll start to center himself more and more as the race goes on. I like Lieberman. I don't know much about Kerry but he seems alright for now. He hasn't been in the spotlight as much as Dean anymore.

If the election were today I would re-elect Bush. I'm upset with a few things he's done. I didn't like the lead up to the war, but I am glad that he is in command now. I'm much more comfortable with our national security in his hands than one of the other candidates.

I'm still swayable though. None of these candidates have spoken to me yet (figuratively of course), but there is still time.

I would imagine that if you were to look into this none of the candidates who now hold public office are taking care of business - they're all out running for office but don't blame only those running for national office - the rest are busy running for re-election. I really believe that term limits - or a restriction of when anyone can start "running" for an office should be established by law and anyone who violates it be removed from office and banned from politics. 30 days before election day. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. This would probably provide us with a working government instead of the parttime garbage we have under the current system.

None of the Democratic candidates really speak to me, but I'm used to that at this point. I still think any of them, with the possible exception of Lieberman, would be better than our current president. So I'll probably vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination.
Like most Americans, I was willing to give President Bush a chance after his election and again after 9-11. I won't get fooled again.

Kucinich is the only candidate I'm interested in, but I know that he has zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

EDIT: Forgot to mention why. I generally agree with his stand on issues, plus I feel that he's the only genuine (as in someone who'll say what he really thinks) Democrat who's running.

I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate because I really don't trust Cheney and pals.

I voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian) in 2000 because of his isolationist foreign policy and anti-drugwar principles (although I disagree with a lot of his ideas) but at the time I did not have my current fear of the Bush Administration and didn't really have a preference between Gore and Bush.

If the vote were today, I'd definitely vote for Bush, but this is really only because of my sheer dislike for all the rest of the candidates. I really wish McCain's hat was in the ring, as I think he's the best man for the job. Maybe in 2008, he will be.

Hm, very tough call.

Last election (the first I was of voting age for), I made it a point to vote third-party, due to my distaste for a two-party system. Lots of my friends have chastized me for helping Bush win, but my defense is that Gore won my state, damn it! That's all that could have been done from my perspective. I might do the same this election, depending on the forecast of who will win my state (Maryland). If it's a toss-up or looking bad for the Democrats, I will definately vote Democrat. If the Democratic candidate is definately going to take Maryland... I might see what else there is to offer.

Now, as for who I would pick specifically... I think a Dean/Clark ticket would get my vote. Dean has kinda been overly ultra-left and anti-bush, but part of me thinks its rhetoric to get people riled up. I don't think he would be like that as much as the election nears (or during a term as president). And I think Clark would make an excellent VP.

Please stop calling Dean too far left.

He is not far left.

He has been and continues to be endorsed by the NRA. Far from a Leftie goal. He has received high marks as governor by the Cato Institute for his ability to run a fiscally sound government.
He was in favor of the Afghanistan war. He saw it as necessary.

He will come Clinton Center. And he will win, with my vote.

The only way Bush could get my vote is if hell froze over and/or Kucinich got the Democratic Nomination. I really like Kerry, but he is running a piss poor campaign. Dean is not as much of a lefty as he is being painted, but I just don't like him. Gephardt is a good man, and I think he would make a good (not great) president. Lieberman is a solid candidate, but I do believe he would have a difficult time winning. Clark is someone I really like as an individual, but I am still trying to sort out where he stands on the issues. Ultimately, I will vote for the Democrat and I guess I am hoping that it will be Kerry. Of them all, I think he would be the best president. He has solid foriegn policy credentials as well as extensive domestic policy experience. He is well respected by members of both parites and has a centrist track record. I just think he is a lousy campaigner.

If I didn't know it before, I realize now that my political views are pretty closely aligned with Liquor Dealer's. I too have been a little irritated with Bush, but would still vote for him, as of now, as the lesser of several evils. I disagree with some of his foriegn policy, the prescription drug benefit plan, and don't like the fact that he and those around him believe in a market solution to everything but tort reform. However, I think he would do a better job of leading the country, leave the country in better shape than any other candidate, would appoint better judges (if they could ever get confirmed) and I trust him to handle some unforseen crisis better than the others.

In defense of Gephardt, he's the minority leader, and as such, I bet he and his staff are doing a hell of a job representing his district, even if he's not there for many votes, which don't really matter. I used to work for the U.S. House, and although that voting record is really low, or it would have been when I was there, I don't think that is a valid criticism of the job he's doing or whether he's earning his pay.

I wish I knew more about Edwards. As a successful trial lawyer for 20 years, he has a head start in my book, but I don't know much about his positions.

So far, none of the candidates ring my bell either.

Dean is the only dem candidate that I can even conceive of voting for, but he has as much baggage as Bush does.

I suppose I should look at who the Libertarians are fielding, even though it's a throwaway vote.

I won't go for a throw away vote - I'm going to make mine count one way or the other but I will at least take the lesser of two evils. I've voted wrong a couple of times and had to live with it for four years and yes, I realize that the only place my vote probably counts is in my own mind. No matter who the two are - one will always outweigh the other in some form or fashion.

The whole thing might be moot anyways....

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.htm

Big deal, Republicans almost always win New Hampshire anyway. Bush won it in 2000 as well.

Bush won NH by 1%.

So a 2-1 victory would be a big deal.

And Dean is still minimally known.

The only people who pay attention to primaries are those who vote in them. In this case, politically active democrats.

Most everyone else still doesn't know him from Adam, so when you pit an unknown democrat against Bush, of course Bush wins.

Wait till Bush and Dean have to take part in a couple debates. Bush is, at best, a sub-par debater. Dean knows his issues inside out and is an excellent attack dog when it comes to a debate.
Gore, for some reason just sat back and sighed every time Bush said something asinine. Dean will not, we have seen that in his debates already, and it will cost Bush dearly.

vrs......

So I'm not sure your 'who is Dean' theory holds water here.

Dean is also known for shooting his mouth off and saying really stupid things, like his comments about the south.

I'm sure you would like to think so, but only asinine things I recall were some of Gores obvious lies which were quickly shown to be just that. Don't forget Bush has been president for the last 4 years, that experience will count for something come debate time. Bush is a horrible public speaker as politicians go, but that will be less of a factor now then it was then.

I don't mind Republicans, I've voted for them before.
But I don't like Bush...so that's out.

I don't like Gephardt -career politician
I don't like Dean - seems slick
I've always liked Leiberman - hell, I even voted him in when I lived in CT...
but he doesn't have the charisma to win.
And I like Kerry, but he's like Leiberman...just doesn't have it.
The rest are jokes.

Of the ones who might have a chance, I like Clark
Balanced, strong, straight-forward, efficient.
I like what I've read about him, and I really think the only reason he is on the Dem ticket is
because the GOP is locked up by GW.
Otherwise, he'd be a centrist Republican.

The only issue I see with him is first he started late,
and two, he's not so hot playing politics...to honest for his own good.
He's the least of all evils, so I'd vote for him.
Problem is I can't vote in the Dem primaries because I'm Independent,
and I think he's lost the momentum he once had.

And I doubt the Libertarians are going to put up a significant candidate. (which I'd love to see)

What lies?

Dean. I dont think he is too far left at all, most of his views parallel mine, and after someone as right as Bush, I think the country needs someone on the left to swing the country back to the middle. He also doesnt strike me as as big of a sleazebag as most of the other candidates.

So far, Clark seems to be a fine candidate as well, but I dont know much about his stances.

Those lies

I'd vote to reelect the President.
I'll do this because he has executed masterfully through one of the most crucial periods in our history.
The choices he's made are the tough necessities from among the limited possibilities presented by rough reality.

If this were an ideal world...but it's not, not even relevant - idealism never is relevant when it comes to making the tough choices that need to be made regarding real politics.

I would also vote to reelect George Bush. He's not the greatest President ever but he's the best one available. If not him, then Clark I guess. Because I don't really believe he's a Democrat or a liberal, he says so but, meh, he isn't very convincing considering what he said about the current President not so long ago. So if he got into office I wouldn't have to sob like a woman.

Dean. Why? Because of the same subject that's been discussed to death and no one wants to hear anymore: there are no weapons of mass destruction...that's a pretty big lie to overlook

If nothing else, Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction - just from the shear numbers of people he was responsible for killing. Now that he's in custody a lot more will be known and Dean will be........

There was plenty of evidence that there was wmd's in Iraq. They even admitted to having anthrax at one point. Hell, even Clinton bombed them for being bitches at one point. There's a lot of talk about Bush being a liar, I think people are still mad about that whole DNA evidence on a fat girls dress thing.

I hate politcians but if I had to choose I would vote for either Dean or Clark. Both are charismatic, well spoken, and clear on what they want to do for this country. I can't comprehend why anyone would vote for Bush. Bush has no charisma, he can't even give a speech without sounding like a robot. He hasn't done anything for this country. Is the capture of Suddam going to improve the economy, get more jobs for people, solve social issues back at home etc..? Is the capture of Suddam going to stop terrorism? Nope. People have to stop being complacent and help make change in this country.

And we have a winner. :thumbsup:

Yeah but what about the social and economic issues he has neglected to masterfully address at home?

Throw-away vote!!!! I'm registered Green party and I feel in no way that I'm going to "throw my vote away." I vote for the candidate whose beliefs best fit mine. I think that if you're voting for someone just because they are likely to win or because they are running against a certain party then you are voting for the wrong reasons.

I'm not sure who i'd vote for if the election was held today. I'm still researching all the candidates...but I'm definately steering clear of Bush.

You must one of those who refuses to accept that economy is on the rise. There have always been social issues which no president has ever fixed, right?

Then I'll explain what I mean - you say you will vote for Candidate X (whomever he might be) of the Green Party (and I'm not real sure what that is - we don't live in the East. I will vote for George Bush. That means he received two votes for all practical purposes, mine, and the one you placed somewhere that has no affect on the outcome. Do you get where I'm coming from?

Which ones would those be?

Our shitty economy, education, healthcare etc..etc..

How is it on the rise when so many are still unemployed, companies outsourcing their jobs to india, etc..

I was right. You are one of those who refuse to accept the fact that the econmy is on the rise. Thanks for admiting it. Did you not read any news articles that said the economy grew 8.2%? Give it a little more time and it will create more jobs. Then what are all the Bush haters gonna cry about?

The Green party has no official candidate yet.

As for the "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Bush" idea...the whole point of voting for a 3rd party candidate isnt to get elected at first. Right now voting for a 3rd party is to try and help the party get 5% of the vote thus giving them federal funding in the next election. This will solidify that party as a major political party. Voting for a 3rd party is a vote to try and eliminate the two party system that we've had to deal with for so long. But anyways, that's what i have to say...

Yeah more minimum wage jobs. I read these articles but it's just a percentage on piece of paper. There's no real world proof that it has grown that much. Seeing the amount people, friends, and family with degrees and qualifications up the ass unemployed or recently getting laid off, shows me no indication the economy is getting better. If Bush gets re-elected it's just going to continue to get worst. He'll continue his fight on terror while leaving everyon in the US high and dry.

All my friends are doing fine. Maybe your's friends need to move or get a marketable degree. In fact the economy around Chicago is booming right now, so perhaps you can tell them to look here.

Also about the only credit I give Bush on the economy is for the tax cut, there is only so much the govt can do to help an economy, but there is a shitload it can do to destroy it.