He was pro-choice, pro stem-cell research, and probably wouldn’t try to ban gay marriage—he might even have approved civil unions—and he seems more dedicated to the seperation of church and state. And I like Democratic domestic policies more than Republican ones, on the whole.
But, in all honesty, that’s pretty much he had going for him, for me. I didn’t even expect him to win. And if he had won, I’d probably feel just as vaguely dissatisfied as I do now, anyway.
I thought I was screwed, either way it went. So I made the token effort of voting for the best domestic-front candidate. sigh
He pissed me off in a lot of ways. Two in particular: Going on record as favoring state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and, perhaps worse, voting to authorize use of force in Iraq.
Until about a day before the election, I was going to vote 3rd party. It was an anybody with a pulse but Bush kind of thing.
But I thought about it that morning, and figured that, although Kerry would take MA and my vote didn’t count for squat in the EC one way or the other, if the guy one, numbers on his side would give him something of a mandate to hold over the Legislative branch, and that might be important as far as nominating SCOTUS justices and the like would be concerned.
So, I held my nose hard, and cast a vote for Kerry.
While I respect others’ right to have a fixed set of absolute values, I have values that have changed over time and will continue to change. Kerry’s stance on social issues, especially his willingness to respect views other than his own and faiths other than his own (see stances on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research which contradict those of his faith) got my vote.
Kerry’s willingness to work with other nations gave me hope. To me, this doesn’t necessarily mean working exclusively through the UN.
My vote was an anti-Bush vote as regards the war. I find the war in Iraq inexcusable. As jkirkman said, war should be a last resort; the Iraqi war wasn’t. Our conduct in prisons (both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) has made us into the opposite of everything I thought the US was supposed to stand for. It breaks my heart to think of the number of men and women (both military and civilian, American and not) who have died needlessly. Our aggression has bred aggression and hatred that I fear will cause many more unnecessary deaths. I had hope that a change in leadership would give us a changed attitude toward the war and lead to an earlier resolution of this conflict.
I wonder what the outcome of the election might have been if there had been calm discussion of values, platforms and ideals instead of name-calling and fact distortion on all sides. Thanks to griffen2 and smartini for starting these threads.
He’s intelligent, well-spoken, calm in times of crisis, understands that American security rests on having the support of the rest of the world, understands that killings civilians in large numbers tends to make people unhappy, is pro choice, is against the moron amendment, is pro environment, understands that unlimited flight of jobs to other countries is bad for the American economy, and served with honor in Vietnam and thus understands the sacrifices that soldiers make in wartime.
The main argument against him would be that his long-term economic plan is to screw everybody who’s not a baby boomer. But the same is true for Bush, so that’s a non-issue.
I voted for Kerry because I felt that he would be less likely to recklessly cut taxes. I thought that he has some respect for the constitution and think that he would have appointed judges that view privacy as a right.
I would have rathered have voted for Dr. Howard Dean.
Quite simply, when comparing their views of issues side-by-side, I agreed with Kerry on maybe 90 percent of the time.
I’m surprised every election that people care about anything else. Even in this very thread, when I see fellow Kerry voters making their decisions on other things (which I won’t start a debate about, as this is not the place for it).
IMO, character should means nothing (not that I have anything against Kerry’s character). But even if Kerry had a huge character problem, I’d still much rather have a person with weak character in power fighting for my interests (however ineffectually), than a man of strong character fighting against my interests,
I support two similar beliefs here. I believe that any retarded person should be able to hold a job that they are at least partially competent to do. However, I also believe that should said retarded person become President of the United States, he/she should have a one term limit.
Untill we find that other internet, or the reason that OBGYN’s need to practice “love” with their patients, Bush should stick to what his handlers tell him to say.
Hail to the dumbass that got re-elected because of his father’s last name, and the people that are offended by other people’s bedroom behavior.
If there is a God, John Mccain will save us from this crap. Yes he’s republican, but he’s not Bush, and he’s not an idiot. Too bad that leadership matters less these days than does party affiliation. For shame sheep.
I’ll be frank; I didn’t like either of the major-party candidates. That being said, much of what Bush says/does doesn’t make sense to me. About two-ish months after 9/11, he gave a speech with two statements in it; paraphrased, they were “I want to cut taxes/keep tax cuts low,” and “I want to increase defense spending to keep America secure.”
I’m all for keeping America secure. However, I am willing to pay higher taxes to do it. I don’t think we should cut social programs to increase military spending.
Additionally, while neither candidate was a social progressive, exactly, Bush was much more conservative on these issues than Kerry. Kerry was at least willing to pay lip service; Bush seemed to be pandering to the religious right. In particular, his support of an amendment banning same-sex marriage really pissed me off. Also, back when he was governor of Texas, Bush made a statement basically implying that my religion (paganism/Wicca) wasn’t a valid religion. Not that it wasn’t right–that it wasn’t a RELIGION. Having said that, he would need to give me a DAMN good reason to vote for him, and he hasn’t.
Finally, I knew there was no way in Hell that the Dems were going to take back the Senate and the House. I think that, honestly, the government seems to do better when the executive and legislative branches are ruled by opposing parties. It keeps either side from becoming marginalized–something that I think has happened even over the past few years. It’s to the point where “liberal” is used as a slur or a dirty word. I don’t like that mindset.
There’s more to it than that, of course, but these were the main issues.
Supreme Court: The next four years are likely to see three vacancies on the bench (though I said the same thing four years ago). I believe that “strict constructionist” is, more often than not, simply code for “conservative activist.” Given the choice, I’d rather have liberal activists on the bench.
Foreign Policy: I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was simply awful. It was no more relevant to the “War on Terror” than invading almost any other Middle Eastern nation would have been. It has cost us much credibility and prestige among both out allies and those we should hope to make our allies. It has stretched our military too thin. And, of course, it has cost the lives of over 1,000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis. Iraq may or may not be better off in the (very) long run, but it is certainly much worse off right now.
Bush may or may not be the better man to lead us in Iraq now that we’re there, but I have no confidence that he will not start another foolish war.
3. Domestic Policy: I’m a civil libertarian, and I believe that Kerry’s views on social issues would have been more in line with my own.
The debt is likely to top $10 billion dollars by the time Bush is out of office. I believe that “tax & spend” is better than “don’t tax & spend.”
I voted for Kerry, if only because I could not conceive of one single reason to vote for Bush.
I think he is articulate, intelligent, and an experienced politician-I admired his standing on many issues. He impressed the HELL out of me during the debates when he bluntly said he would not force a pregnant girl who was raped by her father to seek his (her father’s) permission for an abortion.
He was on the whistleblowers on Iran-Contra, and it seems he stood up for what he thought was right, even when it wasn’t popular.
And finally, as a native of Pittsburgh, I would have loved to have seen Teresa Heinz as first lady. I truly love her-she’s got serious chutzpah!
My boss used to work for John Kerry and stays in touch with him. I asked my boss to tell the Senator that I started out this election voting against Bush, but I ended it voting for Kerry.
I voted for Kerry because I spent eight months in Iraq and I saw gross incompetence in the post-war planning and I did not want to reward that kind of error in judgement.
I voted for Kerry because this administration needlessly alienated our allies and the world for no good reason.
I voted for Kerry because the Bush administration did everything Bin Laden hoped for in the aftermath of 9-11.
I voted for Kerry because the Bush administration has wrapped Iraq up in a bow and presented it to Al Qaeda.
I voted for Kerry because he was the candidate who talked about fiscal responsibility.
I voted for Kerry because he most represented my values: intellectualism over dogmatic faith, tolerance over bigotry, understanding over hate.
For the first time in my life, I became a single-issue voter.
I voted for Kerry because he was the only candidate who could realistically defeat the president who led us into a war of aggression based on lies. (I don’t know whether Bush was a party to the lies or whether he only heard what supported predetermined conclusions from the intelligence community; but it doesn’t matter in my view.)
I hope never to have to vote based on just a single issue again.
