John Kerrey, D-Mass
There was talk that Al Sharpton would run Democratic in 04.
Would you vote for him?
I think anyone is entitled to ‘whine’ if the democratic prosess is undermined. Australians, in fact, did ‘whine’ when John Howard tried to claim he had a mandate to implement certain policies when he did not win the popular vote. However, he did win more seats in that particular election (1998). Thus, since he was elected, he was entitled to use those seats to pass through his legislation. Unfortunately.
If he had been appointed, there would have been considerably more ‘whining’, and so there should be. People should be ‘whining’ if the proper democratic process is prevented from occuring by the courts.
Use the population of another country to push your pro-Bush agenda in future.
*Originally posted by Mythos45 *
Note my emphasis on the last word. “Save the spotted owl? Sorry, simply not cost-effective. Besides, it’s only one species!”
And has he done anything to help this come about?
Considering GWB’s recent statements regarding religious litmus tests for judges and other government officials, in direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution, you’ll forgive me if I take this one with a :rolleyes:
If we’re assuming the same candidates as 2000, I’d vote my conscience and go with Nader again. Bush I can’t even stand to look at or listen to, and Gore isn’t much better.
Well, I doubt he would have declared “war on terrorism,” at least. :rolleyes:
If Nader wasn’t running, I might go with McCain or Powell, if they were up. I don’t know who the Democrats might offer up next… nobody I can think of that I’d vote for. shrug
I would say that the House Republicans passing their White-House backed Medicare reform bill counts as helping to bring about reform, wouldn’t you?
See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/28/politics/main513688.shtml
President Bush’s unsettling comments != the Republican party line. Above, Galen was condemning the entire party as functional theocrats. This is absurd.
While I agree in part with this assessment, I find that it is oversimplified. One Democrat is not the same as another, nor are all Republicans basically the same.
When voting for President, you’re voting as much for the person as for the program, even if it’s only in the sense of a figurehead position. When I vote for President, I think “Who will be a better leader? Who will most accurately and skillfully represent our country?” This is one of my main objections to both Bush and Gore; neither man strikes me as a good leader or a fair representative of any ideals save their own.
Was Bill Clinton as good a leader as JFK? Was George Bush (the first one) as inspiring as FDR? Obviously, I find that there are men who are well-suited to the Presidency, who fulfill their Office skillfully and completely… and then there are those who just sort of take up space. I try to vote for the ones who will do more with their responsibility.
I agree that, when voting for the President, you are voting in part for the programs he or she is sponsoring. With the person comes the package… I buy that. However, you are also voting for the person who comes with that. Especially now, that person will be in the news almost every day for the next several years, and they will be our main point of public contact (as a nation) with the world.
For me, I’m voting for the package and the person. You can’t have one without the other.
To all the people in the anybody but Bush camp, you might want to add the name Ventura to that statement.
Tally to date, for those counting:
Anybody But Bush - 13
Bush - 10
N/A - 7
Other suggestions in no particular order: Gore, Lieberbam, Cecil, Stocksdale, McCain, Clinton, Rudy, Mom, Nader, Drew Carey, Myself, Kerry, Sharpten, Powell
I had written in Dick Gregory in 84, 88, 92 and 96.
He is and will be the candidate I believe is the best for the job.
Unfortunately, he’s not that electable.
It seems he wants to support Sharpton for Democratic ticket in 04. If so, I won’t take his advice!