Why I will vote for the democratic nominee
I agree with you guys to a certain extent about both parties being "the same" when it comes to as high an office as that of the Presidency, because only those running with a more moderate agenda will be able to garner the amount of votes needed to win. Bush may have a tough time pretending to be a moderate this time as he did successfully in 2000, and some of Kerry’s Senate votes (such as against the “defense of marriage act”) are also on the liberal side. Edwards is more liberal on some issues than Kerry, and less on others.
How Kerry or Edwards would be vastly different from Bush:
The Environment-
President Bush has instituted a scorched Earth policy when it comes to the environment, and there is simply too much for me to list here in the way of policy etc. I shall be brief.
President Theodore Roosevelt, a truly great man by any stretch of the imagination, preserved 240 million acres of land for conservation purposes in his eight years, while Bush has weakened protections on 234 million acres in 3 years. To give you an idea of how significant that is, consider that is about 10% of America's land, and a land area the size of Texas and Oklahoma combined.
Bush has constantly sided with industry over Americans in weakening landmark bipartisan environmental laws that protect the environment and our people's health such as the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act. His law changes would allow more arsenic and sewage to be dumped in our rivers and lakes, and more mercury to be spewed into the air later to rain down in our rivers and lakes. In perhaps the most galling policy discrepancy, the Bush FDA advised pregnant women to consume less fish because of high methyl mercury contamination in most fish, and days later proposed weakening clean air laws that would allow more mercury to be emitted into the atmosphere. Most rivers and lakes in our country are contaminated by methyl mercury, and one cannot fish and safely eat their catch in most areas. 98% of this mercury pollution is from the burning of coal, and not from natural sources.
Bush ended the so-called “superfund,” where the polluters pay to clean up toxic waste sites they helped create, and has shifted this financial burden to taxpayers. In New Jersey, the state with the most toxic waste sties, most of its citizens live within mere miles of a toxic waste site that was supposed to have been cleaned up under the superfund program. Even Reagan supported this program. Actually much of the “superfund” money earmarked to make our communities safer went to pay for the Iraq war.
His Administration uses positive sounding euphemisms to dupe the American public and cloud the true intent of the policy changes (weakening protections), such as the “Clear Skies Initiative,” and “Healthy Forests Initiative.” The Bush Administration, supposedly a bastion of federalists, has also constantly fought against states such as California and New York over their stricter than EPA emissions standards for cars and industry. A number of state governors, some Republicans, have joined in a suit against the Bush Administration over their weakening of pollution laws. I’m not sure as to the progress of that suit at the moment, as I read about it some while back.
The Bush Administration is also pressing ahead with plans to dump nuclear waste in a site near Las Vegas despite the fact that one of the key scientists working on the project has quit to speak out about how unsafe it is to do so.
Bush Department of Interior head Gail Norton calls this land,
http://www.wwbphoto.com/
“a flat, white nothingness.”
Despite the fact that Congress and the majority of Americans have continually opposed turning the Arctic Wildlife Refuge into an oil field, revenue estimates from oil leases in the refuge were included in Bush’s 2005 budget. If Bush is reelected those above pictures will instead look like these:
Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields
There is an average of over one oil spill per day in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, with over 430 in the last year. That statistic alone puts to rest any notion of "environmentally friendly drilling," as Ms. Norton would put it.
The Administration’s latest proposal, perhaps the most disgraceful that anyone can imagine, is to allow timber companies to log the Grand Canyon. They are being sued in court, but if Bush is reelected, this proposal will almost certainly become a reality. This is especially true if you consider that Bush is appointing judges to the Federal Courts who probably agree with this terrific idea.
If every American knew what I know about the Bush environmental record, he would not be reelected. It’s that simple. Approximately 80% of Americans consider environmental issues to be very important.
The TV media doesn't cover these issues enough unfortunately, though the newspapers are better. Too bad many people just watch TV.
Kerry on the other hand, has one of the best environmental records in the Senate, and Edwards does also.
Civil Liberties-
Kerry/Edwards would appoint an attorney general who is not a religious extremist, and who will uphold civil rights, worker rights, and not be such a threat to civil liberties. They would not call for an amendment to the constitution that would enshrine discrimination into it for the first time ever.
Judicial Nominees-
Kerry/Edwards would appoint judges similar to John Paul Stevens; moderates instead of ideologues. Whom you vote for is also the person filling the Federal Courts of the country with lifetime appointments. Most people don't tend to think about that.
Education-
Kerry or Edwards would properly fund education, and help to close the education gap between more affluent and poorer communities. Bush has cut one billion from education funding from his 2005 budget.
Separation of Church and State-
59% of Americans believe in a strong separation of church and state.
Since taking office, Bush has used Executive Order to funnel money to far right religious groups including Pat Robertson's Christian® Coalition. Clearly Bush is out of the mainstream on this issue. We also know that the Administration has set aside science in favor of a far-right Christian® social agenda. Yes Tucker Carlson, it’s 20 Nobel Laureates and not “only 10.” As if that detracts from their statement of condemnation any.
Read the Zogby poll here:
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/N...fm?ID=5286&c=37
Learn about the candidates’ views on separation of church and state here:
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/E...04List.cfm?c=88
Police, Fire, Coast Guard, first responders-
Kerry or Edwards would not have cut their funding by 800 million dollars, and have treated these heroes with such utter contempt after promising to be on their side while standing with them in the rubble of the twin towers.
Taxes-
Kerry/Edwards would help keep the tax structure a progressive one. Bush has helped turn the tax structure into a regressive one, shifting the burden onto lower income people.
Most normal people saw their taxes stay the same, or actually increase after Bush’s tax “cuts.”
Women’s rights/Stem Cell Research/Abstinence only sex ed –
This is a given, though I don’t believe the Republicans truly want to outlaw abortion. They just want to do stuff like stifle stem cell research, to piss the scientists off lol.
In the original Roe vs. Wade decision, most of the justices deciding in favor of “Jane Roe” were Republican appointees, while one of Kennedy’s appointees dissented.
Kerry/Edwards would also look at the actual science concerning sex ed data from other countries, and I doubt they would support this “abstinence only” approach that only a small minority of Americans (15%) favor. Kerry/Edwards would also not hold up FDA approval of the sale of emergency contraception. This move alone could cut teen pregnancy in half.
How Bush and Kerry/Edwards would be similar:
Foreign policy-
Kerry and Edwards seem to have been for the Iraq war only if it was done their way.  Clark was the only sane Presidential candidate (with any chance in hell of winning) on this issue. Even Dean supported the Biden amendment to the IWR that still would have authorized force against Iraq.
Corporate and "special interest" money-
Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and Gore have all taken big interest money, though significantly less than Bush. Also, you can consider virtually any group of two people or more who donate money a “special interest,” including that well-known terrorist organization, the National Education Association.
Free Trade-
I don’t think Kerry or Clark would have done much to change the free trade policies.
Edwards seems to be more protectionist on trade however.
Media Consolidation-
After Dean said he would break up big media, the media seemed to turn on him in a subtle way. Of course, Dean also did it to himself with his wackiness, but I knew after he said that he would lose his favorability with the media. I believe I read somewhere that Kerry once cast a vote in favor media consolidation, which is unsettling if true.
I'm not sure about Edwards’ stance on media consolidation.
Nader has every right to run, but I think in this election, for most of the left at least, it’s a bit foolish for one to not be able to compromise on a few issues for the good of the country. Nader’s argument that Bush and Gore would have been the same, I feel, is utter BS. I knew this before the election in fact because Bush was governor of the state in which I grew up, but most voters bought into his moderate-sounding rhetoric. In the end though, the 2000 results were also Gore’s fault for running a crappy campaign, and not distinguishing himself enough from his colleagues on the issues.
Read Gore’s speeches on the Iraq War, the environment, education, etc, and then tell me again there’s no difference between Gore and Bush.
Before the Iraq war Gore was speaking out against it, and was speaking instead of keeping the focus on Afghanistan:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...,797999,00.html
Gore on the environment:
http://www.moveon.org/gore3/webcast.html
Had Nader been president during and after 9/11, I don’t feel he would have done an adequate job on our national security issues. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and have put our safety at greater risk in doing so. We would also not have abandoned Afghanistan. Gore may not have been a great President had he been elected, but he had the right plan for fighting terrorism. I think he would have been more of a uniter than Bush.
As for other Democrats in lower offices, some ~130 of them in the House of Representatives voted against the Iraq War Resolution.
My congressman from Austin:
| quote: |
Congressman Doggett helped lead the effort to oppose the invasion of Iraq and aggressively lobbied his colleagues in an effort that resulted in a majority of Democratic members of Congress voting "no" on the Iraq war resolution. At a February 2003 anti-war rally in Austin, Doggett told a cheering crowd:
"Mr. President, the policies that you are pursuing in the name of our security are wrongheaded. They will make our families less secure. You jeopardize the security of our families when you insist on a land invasion and umpteen years of occupation of Iraq..."
|
Remember, that vote was soon after Sept. 11th, and it was not the politically popular thing to vote, “nay.” It was however the right thing to do in hindsight.
It all depends more on the individual person, and their beliefs I guess.
I can name a list of Republicans I also respect. Here are a few:
Rudy Giuliani (fomer NYC mayor), John McCain (Arizona Senator), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island Senator), Olympia Snowe (Maine Senator), Eliot Spitzer (NY attorney general).
So in conclusion, yes I would still vote for 3rd party candidates in lower governmental positions, but I’m willing to put aside my minor differences and vote Democratic for the top job in 2004. The Bush Administration is so far out of the mainstream on domestic issues ranging from the environment, to sex education, to the separation of church and state, that if enough people knew about their extreme positions, they wouldn’t have a chance at being reelected. That’s the real challenge I think; to give people the gift of the truth.
I’ll have to move to Arizona to vote though, since my vote will not count in Texas anyways. Clinton actually came close to winning Texas in 1996 though.
Grr and don’t even get me started on how much I hate gerrymandering (across the country).
It reminds me of the recent Russian “elections” when only about 30 US House seats are competitive. That’s not democracy.
Hmm Arizona is looking pretty good there too. We can win that state if enough people know about the Grand Canyon logging proposal.
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
Last edited by DaveSZ on Feb-25-2004 at 08:30
|
... unless I get too lazy to change it. Then I'll just be a self-hating dem.
