Kerry, without question.

Not that I think Kerry is all that great, but I loathe Bush. Even ignoring his foreign policy (which one certainly shouldn't) he stands for too many things I'm strongly opposed to: anti-abortion, anti gay rights, anti-sensible sex education, for the death penalty, tax cuts for the rich, sparse welfare etc...

Makes me want to hug those, by comparison, fluffy old Tories

I was dead peeved when I caught the last 2 minutes of the debate last night; I didn't even know about it so I didn't even get the chance to ask my Dad to set the VCR!

Did Kerry, by any chance, do what he apparently does constantly, mention his military record and '3 Purple Hearts'?

I didnt hear him say about 3 purple hearts...but that doesnt mean he didnt say it lol

---

by Alan
I was dead peeved when I caught the last 2 minutes of the debate last night; I didn't even know about it so I didn't even get the chance to ask my Dad to set the VCR!

Did Kerry, by any chance, do what he apparently does constantly, mention his military record and '3 Purple Hearts'?

---

Only saw the edited highlights. In what I did see, he referred in passing to the fact that he was a soldier, but not specifically his record.

But it's understandable. The US cares about it's military - it does have a bigger military budget than the rest of the top 20 countries on military spending put together. By comparison, Bush didn't go to Vietnam, and allegedly didn't even serve his full time at home.

Nevertheless, I think it is ill-judged for Kerry to continue doing so, given the smears on his military record of late.

I'm not a huge follower of politics but I know enough to know I despise George Bush.

IÂ’d vote for Kerry. HeÂ’s not perfect but letÂ’s face it, I donÂ’t think he could screw up any more than Bush has done.

Ralph Nader, easily the least objectionable candidate.

I find Kerry ("My position is what would you like my position to be" ) less loathesome than Bush ("God's monster" ) on social issues, but both head up right-wing free-market parties whose economic policies make the Dead Kenedy's "Kill the Poor" look like wishy-washy liberalism. The Democrats attack Nader for stealing their votes as if they've a God given right to their hegemony. But until they represent the man on the street what reason has he to represent them? Maybe four moure years of the Bushites is the lesser evil if it gives the Democrats the wakeup call they're begging for. If Kerry wins we're just guaranteed more of the same: different gloves on an iron fist.

(Edited by Byron 01/10/2004 20:32)

De-lurking here to put my two cents in.

I will be voting in the US election next month and I'll definitely be voting for Kerry.

And Byron, I couldn't agree with you more about needing a more progressive candidate for president. But we have what we have and Ralph Nader has no chance in hell to win.

In a perfect world, where we didn't have a radical, right-wing jackass running (and ruining) the country, I might agree that Nader would be a good choice. But the fact of the matter is, Bush is president. There is no more important mission for the US voting public than to push Bush and that whole wrecking crew that came into power with him out of office. Since the election could be very close, a vote for Nader only helps Bush. Again, Nader has NO chance of winning. So while Nader voters may feel good about expressing their annoyance at the Democratic Party--which is richly deserved--it's just too important to get rid of Bush to do protest voting that will actually help Bush to another four years in power.

Sometimes a protest is all you have.

Maybe, very maybe, you're right that Bush should be booted out whatever the cost. But I question if the two main parties are fundamentally different at all. Most of Clinton's policies were as vile as Dubya's, he just had better spin. Both parties take opposite stances on social issues cos that's all that's left to differentiate them, but neither seems to follow through on their rhetoric. (Clinton's "100 days of radicalism" was a bigger bust than Enron, and Dubya isn't going to outlaw abortion and homosexuality anytime soom.) It's just the neo-Cons are so openly vile it people can't ignore it.

But hey, it's late, I'm off to Freshers' week in the morning, maybe this'll get more coherent when I sign back with my uni account in a few days. See ya about then.

---

by SkyBabies
I'm not a huge follower of politics but I know enough to know I despise George Bush.

IÂ’d vote for Kerry. HeÂ’s not perfect but letÂ’s face it, I donÂ’t think he could screw up any more than Bush has done.

---

That kinda sums up my only thoughts on the US presidential election.

Bush has done nothing but cock up everything that's come his way.
Can Kerry really be that much worse?!?

I have pretty much the same thoughts on the UK Priministerials elections (whenever the heck they'll next be) - Anyone is better than the idiot fop that is Tony Blair.

---

by Taz
I have pretty much the same thoughts on the UK Priministerials elections (whenever the heck they'll next be) - Anyone is better than the idiot fop that is Tony Blair.

---

But it really wasn't very long ago that the whole country was saying that exact same thing about the tories, and voted Tony Blair in to get rid of them. Who's to say that John Kerry won't be the next Blair to George Bush's John Major..?

To quote a PC game I used to play way too often: "Time will tell, sooner or later, time will tell..." *crosses fingers*

---

by PictureOfFlowers
But it really wasn't very long ago that the whole country was saying that exact same thing about the tories, and voted Tony Blair in to get rid of them. Who's to say that John Kerry won't be the next Blair to George Bush's John Major..?

---

Very true.
I guess it's a case of hoping that he's not *quite* as bad as Bush.

In answer to a comment above, yes, I'll agree that the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties has been co-opted by powerful corporate interests, and both have moved much too far to the right. What's even worse is that the Republican Party has been captured by the most radical, right-wing elements within it, who have been on a mission to purge the more moderate elements of their own party. On the national level, they've just about accomplished that, which is why this Republican administration has been so damaging. The Democrats, instead of being a strong opposition party, have decided that they need to move farther to the right and play the "me too" game in many instances, because they think it will help them win some elections. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but...

Even with all that, there still is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two parties, and although it may not be apparent in the national leadership, it is apparent in terms of various political leaders in the lower ranks of the party in Congress and on the local level, and in the policies those people tend to support. Right now, it's probably clearer on domestic issues. For example, the Democrats tend to support strong environmental protection, while the Republicans do not. So under Democratic leadership, we get strong environmental laws and protection of greater areas of US land as national parks and wilderness areas. Democrats tend to support issues important to labor. So under Democrats we get attempts to raise the minimum wage, worker protection, and respect for the rights of organized labor. Not so with Republicans. Since Franklin Roosevelt anyway, the expansion of civil rights has generally occurred under Democrats--rights for blacks and other minorities, gays, the disabled, immigrants. Programs to help the poor are geneally supported by Democrats, not Republicans. And on and on. So just having the Democrats in power means a lot in terms of the legislative agenda in the U.S. Congress, for example.

I also know that John Kerry would not be as arrogant in the world as the Bush administration has been. Kerry believes that US has to be a good citizen of the world community--not a dictator that basically kills or steamrolls over anyone who disgrees with us. Under Kerry, The U.S. would rejoin some of the international agreements that Bush has taken us out of--such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. And we wouldn't be doing stupid things like withholding money from certain UN family planning organizations because they counsel on abortion.

Anyway, my point is, even with the Democratic Party's shortcoming--which are many--there would be a difference with a Democratic president in power. Maybe the difference isn't as great as I'd like it to be, but it's enough to make the change worthwhile.

I do have a general Tony Blair question though, since several people have mentioned him above. If an election were held today, would he win? Unlike Bush, he seems intelligent, so the whole UK involvement in Iraq thing mystifies me. Looking from here, it seems that Iraq has really damaged him, but I haven't seen any polls or anything that describe how much. If he has lost support, is it mainly Iraq, or are there domestic issues that are dragging him down, too? I'm curious and would love to get a read on it from anyone who'd care to answer.

I still think Bush and his cronies had some sort of dirt on Blair to force him to back the US led action, it just seemed completely out of character to follow Bush apparently so blindly..

The other thing that was mentioned was that Blair went in with Bush in an attempt to rein him in somewhat, which is a distinct possibility, especially seeing how Blair seemed to have aged with stress over the past couple of years.

One thing that hasn't helped with the current government is the complete lack of a strong opposition party, once the pressure is off they seem to lose their way..

I'd vote for Lib-Dems and hope for either a Lib-Dem victory, or at least Lib-Dem/Labour Coalition government (Which most people seem to agree was the best combination that ever was).

I would vote for a mr michael mouse seeing as he would do a better job than either of them