History has proven Senator John Kerry wrong on his voting record concerning several key issues in the past. However, to give Kerry a fair shake I didn't really consider Kerry's past voting record when looking at the presidential candidates. I did take into account his recent voting record concerning today's issues and problems facing the United States. Watching TV, I saw where Kerry made the remarks: "It's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." This is a politically popular slogan to use to get votes but the reality of the situation is that Kerry voted for the war that he spoke out against. So which is it Kerry? Are you for the war or against the war? Can you make up your mind? Can you as a leader make up your mind and make a decision? Kerry reasons and tries to defend himself by stating that he voted for the war with the understanding that President Bush wouldn't wage the war in the manner that he did. So, to me, that suggests that Kerry supports war just not in the manner that President Bush waged it. But, using this line of defense, that means that Kerry contradicted himself by stating the politically popular slogan "Wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." The truth of the matter is, when Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq he should have known that their came the possibility that Bush will wage the war in the way of his choosing and that he might not agree with it. Kerry should have known better especially with his experience and the fact that Bush managed to ram the Patriot Act through Congress without any of the Congress members reading it. Kerry should have learned his lesson from that instance and I am sure their are many examples of similar legislation and political leaders using that legislation to push forward their own agenda. If he felt that strongly about it, then Kerry should not have ever voted for the war to begin with. But Kerry did vote for the war and then turned around and spoke out against the war. This tells me he cannot make a decision and that he is indecisive. Experiences have taught me that indecisiveness is very dangerous and can cost more lives than making the wrong decision. It is more dangerous to be indecisive than to make the wrong decision. The fact that Bush has made a few mistakes is made up for his decisive decision making. Had Kerry been in office, either Saddam would still be in power or Iraq would be a far more dangerous place because those opposed to the US would sense weakness in a President Kerry. Add to that and America's enemies might view Kerry as a green light to act up, be more assertive and to threaten America directly and her interests more. President Bush, though I don't agree with him on everything, has the leadership qualities needed for the office of the Presidency. I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriage, but I will not let one or two negatives over-ride the many positives about Bush. He also advocates keeping government to a minimum which is very appealing to me even though government was expanded after the September 11 attacks. My fear is that Kerry would expand government control more into the lives of Americans than what Bush had done shortly after the September 11 attacks. I agree with the Assault Weapons Ban expiring because government, no matter how small and no matter how much is needed, is a constant threat to the freedom of the people. Their must be a means for the people to resist the possibility of the government imposing a tyrannical rule that could extinguish the hopes and dreams for the future. Kerry seems to promote more government and also seems to advocate that Americans should "trust government" and is against the Assault Weapons Ban expiring. He doesn't seem to understand that the whole reason why the NRA sought to lift the assault weapons ban was because of the fear of government and the threat that government naturally present to the freedom of the people. It is very niave to trust government and history has proven that time and time again. But we still need government to prevent society from going into lawless chaos and that is the whole reason for the second amendment, to have government to prevent such lawlessness but to keep government from threatening the freedom of the American people. If the American people wish to retain their freedom they must be forever vigilant and willing to fight and die for it if necessary. When the American people become unwilling to fight and die for their freedom and to be vigilante... it is the day that they will lose their freedom and the blessings that they enjoy so much today. Kerry's stance on health care where he wants to give health care to everybody, it sounds great but after examining the issue more in depth with countries that have such a system their are serious problems in thoe countries that have socialized health care. These countries provide poor health care, their are serious problems with over-crowding... the facilities and medical technologies are sub-standard. Many Canadians that can afford to come to the US for surgery prefer to come to the US to have surgery done because the doctors are better. In a free market health care system if more people seek health care then the doctors will be able to hire more people and build more facilities unlike the socialized health care systems of Europe and Canada. However, that is not to say that the US doesn't have a problem. The problem, in my view with sky-rocketing costs in health care stems alot from the excessive and frivilous lawsuits. These lawsuits have put many doctors out of business, caused insurance rates to go up so their are less doctors available for certain specialties and thus in the end the excessive and un-necessary lawsuits have caused health care costs to go up. The economic consequences of these lawsuits are serious for the American people. Without doctors in communities due to these lawsuits, businesses are relectuant to move jobs into the community and to do business. Thus, more Americans end up un-employed. What is needed is not a new type of health care system in the US that is socialized. What is needed is lawsuit reform to do away with the excessive lawsuits which are not only seriously harming doctors, but harming the health care of Americans and the potential for other different sorts of jobs in the communties. These lawsuits have taken away jobs and health care from Americans. I would also like to write about the Nader factor. I respect and admire Nader for his determination. I think he can be a positive force in this election and in the future. I hope their are more Americans like Nader who step forward and do as he is doing. He has certainly been good for America. It is good that he has kept up a determined fight and has not let critics stop him. However, his economic philosophy and positions on foreign policy are too radical in my view. I do not agree with his positions on economic philosophy and foreign policy. He seems to be more anti-Israel but I think he fails to appreciate or understand the delimma that Israel faces. Not only that, Israel has been a very key and important ally to the United States and cannot be forsaken. The US and Israel do not always agree on issues contrary to conventional wisdom and the Israeli Lobby does not "control" the US or US foreign policy as some extremists have advocated. It is a powerful lobby but it does not influence American foreign policy as some people might think. However, if I had to choose between Nader and Kerry, I would choose Nader. In this election, however, the choice that I have is between Nader and Bush. Given the fact that both candidates are consistent and Bush is decisive examining their positions on economic philosophies, health care issues and foreign policy is important. Bush in my view is able to better able deal with threats facing the US. His program to continue testing and research into Missle Defense is important, but I would encourage Bush to revive the Brilliant Pebbles program and do tests and research in outer space. Some of Bush's opponents claim that Missle Defense is not feasible. They are wrong. Their has been alot of research and testing done into Missle Defense over decades and the technologies do exist to make Missle Defense feasible. The enemies that face America will use those missles tipped with nuclear warheads to blackmail America from defending it's national interests and it is foolhardy to not develop and deploy a National Missle Defense System. As well, America's enemies will use these missle technologies to threaten the very existance of our allies. The Nader position on foreign policy and Missle Defense is un-realistic in my view and I am more in support of Bush's foreign policy. The Nader position on healthcare also seems to point to more toward socialized medicine which I also view as dangerous because it would produce long term chronic problems in the economy and in the medical field. It is for this reason why I believe Bush is the best candidate for the job out of the candidates that are running for office. The positive influence that Nader brings to this election is that he brings more of a choice for the American people and more competition. Competition is a healthy thing in an election. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

Mestiza, all I can say - good choice man!! "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

That's it, I am voting for Badnarik!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 412: That's it, I am voting for Badnarik!

---

Isn't he that goofy-looking Libertarian guy who says that 9-11 was our fault? "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

No more goofy looking than our president!

---

The biggest problem I see with this election is that there is not much choice... I know of some people who are of the conservative ideology but they do not like this war in Iraq. So what are these people left to do? They don't want to vote for Bush because of the war, but they don't want to vote for Kerry who they know is a scumbag, pro-gay, pro-palestinian, too anti-war in general, etc. So for many people, it is a decision of picking the lesser of two evils. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. If you don't like one candidate, you can only choose to swing to the other (opposite) side of the pendulum. ----------------------- "There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL." - Lynn Lavner II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 412: No more goofy looking than our president!

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone... "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

quote:

---

The biggest problem I see with this election is that there is not much choice... I know of some people who are of the conservative ideology but they do not like this war in Iraq. So what are these people left to do? They don't want to vote for Bush because of the war, but they don't want to vote for Kerry who they know is a scumbag, pro-gay, pro-palestinian, too anti-war in general, etc. So for many people, it is a decision of picking the lesser of two evils. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. If you don't like one candidate, you can only choose to swing to the other (opposite) side of the pendulum.

---

I think every candidate in this election are good people. They just have differeing views. No matter how many candidates you have... you will hardly ever be able to find a candidate that you agree with completely on all issues. That is almost impossible. I don't agree with Bush on everything and he has made some mistakes. No candidate is perfect. However, when I do look at a candidate, I look at leadership qualities. Bush invaded Iraq on the intelligence information that indicated that Saddam was a threat and keep in mind, this was shortly after 3,000 Americans died on September 11. I do not believe that Bush exploited the September 11 tragedy to invade Iraq. Rather, I think the September 11 tragedy made Bush realize their was real threats being aimed at America. It was because of this intelligence information that Bush invaded Iraq. Now the intelligence information later turned out to be wrong and Bush did not alter the intelligence information. If he did, then his democratic opponents would know about it and use it against him in the election. Their was no way Bush could have altered that information without members of Congress or other branches of the government being able to find out about it. Bush inherited the policy of regime in Iraq from the Clinton Adminstration. So this idea of regime change in Iraq did not originally come from the Bush Adminstration, rather, it came from the Clinton Adminstration. What I like about Bush though, was that he was able to come to a decsion. Some people disagree with that decision but he was able to make a decision and because of that, their is no more Saddam threatening the rest of the Middle East or America. Which, I think, Saddam was a threat to America myself even though we don't necessarily have the hard proof to show or prove it. With Kerry, I see Kerry vote for the war... then turn around talking about being against the war. It seems he cannot come to a decision and this is far more dangerous than making the wrong decision. Being indecisive is very poor leadership qualities. That is the reason why I won't vote for Kerry. I would like to give an example of why I feel the way I feel and it is based on my own experiences. The Bush Sr adminstration made the decision to stay out of Bosnia and Clinton attacked Bush Sr Adminstration over this because of the mass genocide that was taking place and the death camps being set up. Yet, when Clinton came to power... he then turned around and backpedaled and did not try to stop the genocide in Bosnia. For three years he was very wishy washy and would issue ultimatums to the Serbs and they would back down only when they sense that America was really serious but continue the mass slaughter in other parts of Bosnia. The Clinton Adminstration after such ultimatums would just then turn around and let the Serbs do as they please in different parts of Bosnia. This was a very inconsistent and a failed policy on behalf of the Clinton Adminstration. It was also very indecisive. This indecisivness and the inability of the Clinton Adminstration to come up with a consistent policy in Bosnia costed the lives of 250,000 innocent people and left 1.5 million others homeless and an entire nation destroyed and in extreme poverty for a long time with little hope of a future. This is the cost of being indecisive. It's very high, far more bloody cost than what is being paid in Iraq right now. I see that same kind of indecisiveness in Kerry and it is dangerous. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

In certain times, situations arise, where taking quick action is not the best option. This is not the same as being idecisive--it can be a calculated move in a bigger game. A game that lasts longer than any one president's term. On the other hand, as Mestiza pointed out, it can be a mistake and costs lives. This is usually a very difficult decision to make for a knowledgeable and intelligent person. It seems to me that Bush does not experience such difficulty. He is sure (or very skillfully pretends to be sure) that he has things like Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rest of the world pretty much figured out. With all the miscalculations with foreign policy to date, maybe it would be a better idea to revisit certain decisions and perhaps examine the strategy. I have not seen any evidence that Bush is actually capable of doing this. Since it is very possible and I think unavoidable that the situation with the "war on terror" will worsen over the next 4 years regardless of who is president, I am apprehensive of a leader who cannot reexamine. What about Kerry? I agree with a lot of the criticism, and agree that he is overly indecisive. All long-time senators are. They stop that when they become presidents.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: ... he [Kerry] is overly indecisive. All long-time senators are. They stop that when they become presidents.

---

Egor, this is called a "wishful thinking". "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Egor, this is called a "wishful thinking".

---

You are right, that's exactly what it is. I am still deciding. Maybe I won't vote at all :) It's just that with Bush there is no more wishful thinking involved. I already know him.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

You are right, that's exactly what it is. I am still deciding. Maybe I won't vote at all :) It's just that with Bush there is no more wishful thinking involved. I already know him.

---

Well, ignoring politics and not voting isn't the answer either. If you don't vote and ignore politics...then politics won't vote for you and will ignore you. If you dislike the candidates that are running... either support a new party or a new third candidate or run for office yourself and put forth ideas to improve the country. It is my view...that complaining about the candidates is a cop out. They are putting forward their ideas and working while you sit back and complain (with all due respect, no insult intended). So to me... I think you should support other candidates besides a republican or democrat or run for office yourself. I think Nader, a third party candidate is a positive influence on the election despite what some democrats may think. You could be too or some other candidate you might support. But refusing to vote or just ignoring politics is big mistake. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

I hate nader even more than the other two. And I cant run for president myself because I was not born here :) You are right in principle, Mestiza, everyone should vote who can. Maybe you guys still have time to convince me about bush :) Probably not.. Georgia will overwhelmingly elect Bush anyway. I would be more inclined to participate if I lived in a toss-up state :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

I hate nader even more than the other two. And I cant run for president myself because I was not born here :) You are right in principle, Mestiza, everyone should vote who can. Maybe you guys still have time to convince me about bush :) Probably not.. Georgia will overwhelmingly elect Bush anyway. I would be more inclined to participate if I lived in a toss-up state :)

---

You might not be able to become president but you can still get into politics and make a difference. Just look at Arnold in California. He has made a difference and could probably exert some influence on who becomes president. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

I mean to me... I don't like all of Nader's politics either but their is a lesson to learn from him. That is, no matter who you are... you can make a difference and bring your views to politics if you work hard enough and believe in what you are doing and that is the whole beauty behind Nader's drive. I don't even think that Nader himself expects to win...but that is not the reason he is running. He is running to provide an alternative, bring more competition to the election process and force the other parties, particular the democrats to listen more carefully to voters. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin