As we all know, many anti-bush campaigners are chanting the slogan..."anybody but bush." You can even see some of the people in this forum have that quote in their signatures. But when it comes down to it, is anybody but bush a smart idea? I mean i know some people who did not care who the democratic candidate was...they would vote him over Bush. Some people still think this way. IMHO it is pretty stupid to choose "anybody" over Bush. I know that most people don't take it completely literally, but i believe that a person should vote for the person they most agree with, not against the one they disagree with.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

I think it is smart in the fact of what the underlying issue with this comment- we need to back whomever has the ability to beat bush in november- and not splinter on side issues- because, any American political candidate in America would be a better choice, whether it be Nader, Dean, Kerry, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore or Kermit the frog- the feeling is- any one could do a better job, because this guy, in our view, is the worst president in modern US history, at least post-depression.

So- uniting and putting aside our discension for any body but bush makes alot of sense- we can not splinter and allow this guy to have this job again.

In this case- pretty much anybody could do a better job- so it is the far far less of the two evils we are talking about- so, even if someone like myself, doesn't agree with Kerry over about 75% of his issues- he just in no way can do a worse job than the GW gang!

I have touted the anybody but Bush slogan myself many times, and let it be known... BUSH is that BAD. Kerry sucks... I really don't want to vote for Kerry, but I will, becuase his name is not George Bush.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

Well, last I checked, "Adolf Hitler" wasn't running in any state, so I think we're okay there. CruisingRam put it very well; it's the sentiment behind it.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

Well, I think that voters should vote for the person that represents their interests best; if getting GWB out of office is their major interest, then they should vote for the person with the best chance to do it. If their interests are in getting rid of the two major parties, then they should vote for Nader. I agree with Nader, but if I could vote I'd vote Kerry because my pervasive interest is routing GWB from office. But just because I disagree with someone, that's not exactly a good reason not to vote for them. I'm not going to vote for the person who doesn't represent my interests. Period.

In the last presidential elections in France we had about the same slogans.

Many French people were disgusted by both the conservatives and the socialists and many didn’t vote at all. As a result Le Pen did relatively well.
So the slogan that the French people came up with was « Vote for the Crook, not the Fascist » as a result many parties united to vote Chirac in.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?


I guess we'll find out in November. Personally, as a Bush supporter who really likes President Bush, I think it's great! I can recall no Presidential campaign in my life where one of the two primary candidates generated less enthusiam in his own party than it appears John Kerry has from the Democrats. I don't know how many people have expressed a "hold my nose while I vote for the guy" attitude towards Kerry. I honestly don't see how a candidate can win an election with support like that. But hey, it works for me.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

Yes for the Republicans. "It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas" in November for the Republicans. The slogan "anybody but Bush" won the Democrats J. F. K. (who is no J. F. Kennedy) and unless his dream team comes up with a choice for V. P. that will allow the "anybody but Bush" voters to quit holding their noses long enough to cast their vote at the polls on Election Day...they just may stay home.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

Sounds more and more like an original idea to me...vote for the candidate of your choice. But then again, anger, revenge, and disgust causes people to do strange things...like voting against rather than for a candidate or just not voting period.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

Sure, if you dislike him that much. I'm kinda torn on that. I like his foreign policy very much in general. I have some quibbles but overall I like it. OTOH, I think his domestic policy stinks, since he's growing government even faster than anybody since LBJ. That means Kerry isn't an alternative for me there either.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

That's up to you. There isn't any major party candidate that I agree with much, and hasn't been since Barry Goldwater. Sometimes I vote for the one I agree with, which usually means the Libertarian Party, and sometimes I vote against. If I vote against this time, it'll be against Kerry.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

Funny- some of the republicans think that this is a positive for thier side- I was worried back in 92 about the Clinton ragers- and it turned out to be warranted- in 94 his negatives and "anyone against clinton" uniting of the extreme right cost the dems quite a bit in the long run. McCain is pretty hard core right in policy- but I don't think you would see the hatred for McCain that you would for Bush, had McCain won the presidency. Bush is certainly uniting his opposition- and it is about the only thing he has ever done well. What I am saying here is it is not so much as the dems being smart and going this direction- but Bush being so bad that it makes it a natural thing to do. I think that it is a uniting of groups that would normally be at loggerheads- libertarians that don't like GWs assault on civil liberties, greenies obvious reasons to hate GW, the liberals of course, disenchanted moderate conservatives, etc etc- that should have GW trying something to pull this out.

1) In general, NO. I say that because whoever the guy replacing Bush could be just as worse. I am not in fact saying Kerry is going to be a bad President if he wins, its just one of thoughts that always come back haunt us "BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR, YOU MIGHT JUST GET IT"

With that being said, you could make an exception in this election. Most people feel Bush is as bad as advtertised. The perception is he governed in a way to divide the people instead to unite. I know that his pledge was to unite the country. Like or not, he divided it even more to the point where many Democrats and Republicans can't even debate on a professional level.

Point is, it really depends on if the people believe the other guy can get the job done.

2) I think people should vote with the candidate they agree with the most. I think this is very important. Most elections seem to run like a high school popularity contest. But voting for people who you agree with on related issues is one of the strengths of our democracy. We should always respect one another beliefs, Republican or Democrat. We can have an honest debate on issues instead of personal attacks.

What has made this election so personal to me is because lives was lost over a decision in my mind (going to war in Iraq) that made no sense. As a result, we have two candidates running for the highest office in the land trying to use the War in Iraq for political gain. Bottom line, the people in this country (Republican and Democrats) should unite and say to one another no matter who wins the election, our goals are all one and the same and cease any partisan attacks on each other.

Anybody but Bush isn't a philosophy. It is an expression of emotion.

After decades of being accused of all the ills in the nation and world, liberals have had it up to here. Now, after the oppostion got the reigns of power and fully messed up (in their views), liberals are fighting back.

Surprised? I'm not. These emotions run very deep and cold.

Voting against a candidate has been done on both sides of the isle very frequently. I mean, Bush got a lot of votes because he wasn't Clinton, but not as many votes as Gore. That indicates to me that the GOP didn't nominate its strongest candidate last time around, and from the chatter I've been seeing, McCain would have been a better choice.

There has also been the argument about how messed up things would be if Gore had won. That's rationalization and conjecture. Nobody knows how things would be had Gore won.

But the liberals think things would be a lot better.

I just get the sense that conservatives are trying to convince themselves that pulling the GWB lever is a good way to go. Convincing liberals to do this is an act of futility.

Which leaves the undecided. Anybody but Bush won't win these voters over, nor will an anybody but a Democrat work. All of the classic fear arguments about Demos in power have been countered by the actions of Republicans.

So there we go. Guess the outcome will be decided by the undecided, and that is driving both campaigns up the wall. Maybe the Bush campaign more so: Nascar dads.

Yeah, right, that's the ticket.

However this turns out, anybody but Bush will play a role and voting against a candidate will also -- on both sides. Does it matter?

You bet.

As an aside, I would like to point out that in fact party politics has such weight in determining votes: I suspect there are also many people who do not care who the Republican candidate is, they would vote for him over any Democrat. As I have pointed out in several threads, In no other country do the political parties inspire such dogmatic unquestioning loyalty, and such bitter vitriolic hatred...

If 'smart' means what is most effective towards achieving your own personal goal, then for me, 'smart' is anyone who won't lie to me or mislead me on important issues. Right now, I'll take my chances that anyone, including my 6 year old cousin, could be a more honest and forthright leader of this country than Bush.



Once we get past the basics of communication, we can start voting for the candidate we agree with. I'm all about voting for the guy I think will improve my community, my country. If we're in a tailspin, stopping the tail spin is an improvement over continuing the tailspin. But we're not even close to being able to make that kind of decision - we're back in the stone age where it's every man for himself without the help of societal communication and structure.

What I mean by the basics of communication - one of the basic rules of society - honesty. Communication is a crucial tool that gives humans an advantage over the rest of the world's species. We can communicate with each other, coordinate our lives, share ideas, and educate each other. What would be the benefit of audible or written communication if we could never depend on the truthfulness of those communications? Every time someone told you something, you'd have to go investigate for yourself to see if it's true. (If it was possible). The entire purpose for speech would be null. We would lose our communication advantage over the other species on earth.

Right now, that's where Bush has us, in my eyes. I don't trust him. I can't even begin to try to think objectively about what he says, about his policies - because it doesn't matter. I don't believe his words. Most of the time he doesn't communicate any information that I could use to make a decision or form an opinion, so even if he did actually provide me with some information that I could base an opinion on, I wouldn't believe him. If he comes to me asking for support for his presidency because he's gonna make changes that would help my community - I don't believe him. I can't vote for him based on the solutions he proposes because I doubt that he'll actually follow through with what he says. I can't evaluate his requests to Congress, because I don't believe he would be honest enough to Congress and the American people. To get back onto a level playing field, I need to get someone in office who isn't going to lie to me, isn't going to tell me one thing, and do another. Then NEXT election, I'll vote for who best represents me. But we've got to get back to the honesty platform. There are no options other than getting Bush out of office. None at all.

It's beyond Democrat and Republican at this point. It's back to the stone age: ask my buddy in the tree to bring me an apple? Or climb up there and get it myself?

edited: grammar

Heck yeah....this is my motto this year with one variation - anybody but republicans.

I'm voting for every democrat I can find and would vote Hillary over Bush. And I'm a conservative that has never voted for a democrat in my life.

Bush and this party have hijacked the entire platform for self-serving reasons. Sure, it's bad enough that any politician's first priority is to get reelected, but good grief.

The size of government has exploded, we're granting amnesty to illegals in a time of war, have begun invading countries because we hate them, and have decided nation building is a platform stepping stone.

We can't fight against terror because we can't keep up with nation building. With the giant sucking sound of our tax dollars going into rebuilding a country we destroyed because our intelligence sucked, how would we have any money to fund the domestic front?

We don't. It's simple math. This is the cost of the unilateralism that Bush is so fond of. This is not a conservative party. There is not a conservative bone in the party's body anymore.

Who could do worse? The same people in office.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

At this point, yes. Dubya has succeeded in making me more politically aware than any president in my lifetime. In this case, I seriously doubt the devil I don't know can be any worse than the devil I do. That's a risk I'm willing to take. I just pray Nader doesn't make the impact that he did in 2000.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

I think its situational. Sadly I find myself more often voting against someone than voting for anyone. I so wish McCain had beaten Bush in 2000. I was looking forward to voting for him.

Doc

I agree with many posts in this thread. I think the context of this is any democratic candidate instead of George Bush. I too have mourned the defeat of McCain in the 2000 election.

I found little to cheer for in particular for Kerry, but I know the path of our government would improve dramatically (according to my goals for the government) if Bush were voted out of office.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

It depends on your idea of smart, I guess. If you think Bush is the worst possible candidate for leader of our country, of course it's smart. I believe that people (like myself0 who are touting the "anybody but Bush" "philosophy" were NOT Kerry supporters and feel that even though they dislike Kerry as leader of our country, they dislike him MUCH less than Bush. That's how I feel anyway, hence "anybody but Bush".

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

Let's be real here. When is the last time you voted FOR someone that you really genuinely liked for a particular office. I have only done that a few times in my voting years, so most of the time, that means I'm voting AGAINST someone - that's the position we're put in with our two=party system. When you've only really got two candidates, what are the odds that one of those two is the one candidate you REALLY want to see there? Not very good odds, we can assume. I would have preferred just about any of the Dem candidates over the lackluster, dull, flip-flopping, and quite frankly - CREEPY, Kerry. But I didn't get that choice because for some odd reason the American Democrats seemed to think Kerry was the "best man for the job" (why, I'll never know - but that's beside the point).

We SHOULD vote for the candidate we agree with - IF there is one in the running. How often is that? In my experience, not very!

By the way, count me in as another mourner of the "loss" of McCain in 2000 (which I still cant' believe). It's VERY Likely that me, as a VERY left-leaning Democrat, would have voted for McCain over Kerry because I admire McCain as a person and politician for going against the grain when he feels the need to.

Unfortunately the American political landscape has turned into a binary folly. We’ve evolved to a point where we really only have two choices. And like any decision with few options you’re often forced into the “lesser of the evils” mode. Is it smart? Not really, I would consider it a sad indictment of our political system and feel it’s the main reason why our voter turn out is so low.

The candidate whose ideas I liked the most (Edwards) didn’t make it out of the Democratic primaries. Although I’m not a big fan of Kerry I don’t like the direction our current administration has taken us so I have no real options.

If I were to go with the "Any Body but Bush" slogan--I would vote Libitarian. To tell you the truth BOTH major parties left a bad taste in my mouth, so I would tweak the slogan like this "Any Body but Bush or Kerry." 8)

I didn't see Bush shrinking the Fed. Bureaucracy.
I think that Kerry flip-flops on the issues.

Yes, we do have some work so that third parties would be a viable choice.

Flip-flopping?

As opposed to stubbornly staying a disastrous course? To Bush's credit, he does not waver when he makes a decision. Unfortunately, he assumes his decisions are correct and mistakes are not made even in the presence of evidence indicating otherwise. But he still does not change course.

Not one claim made by Bush as a justification to go to war to Iraq has proven accurate. Not even one and I continue to stand by for someone to show me ANYTHING he got right about Iraq.

But he has changed nothing. I'd take flip-flopping anyday over being pigheaded. Flip-flopping is far less dangerous.

I still say "let a Libitarian at the riegns." We, Americans, need to get out of this two party grip. Pres. Bush has done some good, granted; but we need to have a third party at the riegns for 4 years to see what it is like.

So this is my logan "Any Body but Bush or Kerry!"

Edited to include:
I might switch my party affiliation to Libertarian. Oh I have already!

I think CruisingRam said it best:

It may not be "smart", but it's really the only viable choice. I normally "waste" my vote on an independent/Green/other candidate, but I won't do that this election.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

The two party monopoly makes it realistically impossible to get a third party candidate into office, so Kerry is the only hope to remove Bush. I'm not crazy about his policies, I think he's a boring speaker, I think he marries for money, and it's hard to distinguish him from a Republican, but he's NOT BUSH.

If the US was a corporation Bush would have been fired by now.

Anyone but Bush must be taken into context. To think that the Dems would have someone that is incompetent as a candidate is assinine. Sure if ANYONE BUT includes me, I would have to say that it is a bad road to travel, but Kerry, despite your opinions, is a competent individual. It is time for America to speak up and say that we disagree with the job that Bush has done. He has failed in almost every endeavor that he has undertook. Bin Laden is still at large, (Spain got their guy in under 2 weeks) Iraq is a total quagmire, and the US economy has taken a back seat to both. Bush tried and he has yet to succeed. It is time for someone else to give it a shot. Not just anyone, but anyone but Bush.

It is ok to admit failures, and if Bush really did care about American's, he would pull himself out of the election. McCain would be a much better choice for the republicans, and he just might get my vote.

Interesing. I agree. I'm not thrilled about Kerry. I usually vote Democrat, but if McCain was on the plate, I would vote for him. But there's no way the Republicans could swallow hard and go with McCain over Bush at this point.

The problem with that is, that as much as you'd like to think it's the case, America (all of it) doesn't agree with you.
The comments and reactions posted in this thread seems, by and large, mostly rhetoric. The same things would be said on the opposing sides if it were a case of 'Anyone but Gore'.
That being said, I would vote for McCain over Bush also. But you can't expect GWB to step aside because Dem's want him to.

Instead of telling me that peolpe disagree with my statement that Bush has failed at almost everything he's touched, tell me what he HAS been successful at.

What has Bush done that you would consider a success?

Why, are you in denial that everybody doesn't hate Bush?
It would be off topic to list accomplishments or things I agreed with GWB about.

I'm sure we have an old topic of that nature, or feel free to start a new one.

I agree that everyone doesn't hate Bush. I simply asked a question, and you STILL have not answered it.

I don't HATE the man, hell I don't even know him. I am able to determine his compentency, or lack there of.

This is not a popularity contest. It is not some reality tv program where we are going to vote off the person we don't like. It is simply a matter of having someone in that position, arguably the most important position in the world, that can succeed. Bush has had his chance, and even though you won't say he failed, he has NOT succeeded.

Again, what has Bush done as the President of the United States that you would consider a success? It's a fair question.

manypaths,

The topic here is:

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)

I'd love to debate you on your question, "what has Bush done as the President of the United States that you would consider a success?"

Would you start a thread on that so we can keep this one on track?

Thanks!

About the "Any body but Bush"--here is a site to look at:
http://www.pollingreport.com/
It contains information on recent polls!

Oh, i still think voting Libertarian is better.......

Like we have seen here its not just any Dem but Bush but truly ABB since some of us would vote McCain over Kerry. A short while back I was saying , look , even bring me back the old Republicans and Ill accept more tax breaks for the rich, just get this guy out of office!

I think we believe Bush and the Admin has not just done what we consider a bad job, but that he has done irreparable damage to america and the world and( to keep it short) has taken us backwards in our progression as a nation. Thats a stong emotion. Thats worth voting against.

Its not only about the President but the whole admin. For me Kerry does not represent me (Kerry being pro-war), but I want the rest of them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Condi) out, I dont believe in one ounce of their policy and worry about new wars of aggression under their collective ideology.

I think Republicans might underestimate the power of ABB. Not many libs were all that pro Gore either and many didnt vote, but Bush has galvanized the left which wasnt the case in 2000.

All of us often vote 'against' rather than 'for' and I suspect many Republicans are going to do the same when it comes to Kerry. Right now if McCain was the Republican candidate he would win by a landslide from both sides, IMO.
Shocking really.

1. Smart? Voting IS smart. Why not vote out of anger, frustration, or disgust? As long as you vote what motivates you to do so is secondary.

Or as The Clash put it in "The Clampdown":

Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?

There's this notion that when casting a vote it should be a solemn and serious exercise like going to church or something. Nonsense! Being honked off at the guy you're voting against doesn't make your vote count any less. The whole idea of "Anybody But Bush" may be sneered at by those who were already predisposed to vote for him, but I'm willing to bet those same folks were saying "Anybody But Clinton" in 1992 and 1996.

What's good for the goose and all that...

2. Like many others have already said, I admire and respect Senator McCain (my best wishes go out to his wife whom recently suffered a stroke) and while I probably (probably?) would not have voted for him over Al Gore in 2000, I think he was the best man by far the Republicans could have and should have chosen. Just as it could be said if he loses in November that John Kerry may not have been the best candidate.

At the end of the day I would prefer to vote for a candidate I'm really enthusiastic about than voting against one that I can't stand. But when that isn't possible I have no problem with flipping the lever just to stick it to some son-of-a-gun that I plain don't like.

We need to "think" anyone but Bush without saying it.

All claiming that phrase will do is energize the Bush campaign. The more criticism he gets, it seems the more the diekard Conservatives plan on being first to the polls.

I’ve been meaning to reply to this thread for two weeks now (typical, huh ) Anyway....

I see the election of the president as an investment in this country. For that simple reason, I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Neither one of those two men is a good investment in America.

Glenn Beck made a good point regarding this on his radio show this morning. It was a simple point, but worth elucidating - voters may vote against someone, but in doing so they are still voting for someone. He encouraged his listeners to ask themselves, “Just because I am against Bush, am I for Kerry?” For me, the simple answer is no, just because I am against Bush does not mean I am for Kerry. It’s not an either or choice.

I worry those who are of the ABB crowd are not thinking of long term goals for this country. From reading this thread, it is apparent many are so sick of Bush they are willing to shortchange their own long term futures for a short-term change. I’m certain some of you will consider my opinion to be ‘idealistic’ or possibly even ‘naive.’ The way I see it is - I plan on raising children someday. My vote in November will very much effect the lives of those not even born yet. How can I explain to future generations that I was willing to compromise their security and rights because I didn’t like the current hothead in office so I chose a lamer version of the status quo? I can’t. Neither Bush nor Kerry is a good investment in America.

I can’t help but think of Victoria Silverwolf’s Defending the Indefensible post when debating in this thread, particularly this quote:

I’ll take a slice of cherry, please.

I'm not inclined to disagree with your opinion, Jaime, because you probably aren't too far from the mark. Unfortunately, your analysis, when held up to the light of political reality, comes off as idealistic. The reality is we have a choice of two people for president. Unfortunately I'm nonplussed about both of them but I'm stuck in an equation of "who do I dislike least"? Its more of a reflection of the sad state of politics than anything.

It would be a novel idea if we had an option on the ballot for "none of the above" and make them do it again. I wonder how many states it would carry?

Doc

Not anyone but nearly anyone. I mean I wouldnt want him replaced with Cheney or Ashcroft or Lott or Zell Miller but I would take most people over him. I think he has virtually destroyed us internationally because he is arrogant and pig headed. He has severly wounded any future coalition. He hasnt apologized for his misguided and fabricated march to war. Him and his administration made laughably incorrect assesments and accosted/ridiculed legit voices like Blix, Thomas White and Shinseki. He has played up a hysteria that he created. He preaches his war on terrorism and as far as I can tell that is his weakest stance. He diverted from a legit and multi coalitioned war in Afghanistan and needlessly rushed into another war unprepared and in doing so alienated our allies and created unprecedented hostility in the middle east towards America. In a global war you need a president who is globally competent and aware. He has encouraged attacks on the US not stopped them. In all honesty I feel that Bush is one of the 3 or 4 worst presidents the US has ever had and I think John Kerry would only be like the 10th or 11th worst president we ever had

The Green Party, and many other groups are advocating for something very like this, called Instant Runoff Voting: http://www.instantrunoff.com/ . Some benefits of IRV



This would ensure that all votes count -- even for those voting "none of the above" who have just as much right to have their voice heard as the "true believers" of the two-party candidates. In fact, in IRV, if none of the above gets the majority of votes there has to be another election -- what a brilliant way to show the two-party system that we are disgusted with the "choices" they give us.


IRV is used in many primaries, elections in some other countries, the Academy Awards and other major awards -- why not in politics?

I agree with Jaime's very eloquent post-- your vote is an investment.

If you don't live in a swing state where the one candidate is assured over another (like here in Utah), you'd be better off investing your vote in a third party or write-in candidate. You could help third parties grow, which if you look long term could help us get out of this two-party mess we're stuck with.

If you are in a swing-state, I wouldn't fault anyone for voting ABB however, since IMHO Bush is the most dangerous president we've ever had. But I don't believe that Kerry is much of a choice, given that he shuns many important progressive values.

The ABB attitude of the Democrat Party is the basis for the entire campaign. Just negativity.

A campaign that involves a man of very modest accomplishments that is undertaken using constant negatively focused attacks creates an unintended reverse effect.

The general public (not the party failthful) does not care for negativity at the level propounded by Kerry unless Kerry is demonstrably better than his opponent. He isn't.

Remember Dukakis in 1988? They called it a landslide. He had over 44% of the popular vote but only 111 electoral votes.

Remember Walter Mondale in 1984? They called it a landslide. He had over 40% of the popular vote but only 13 electoral votes.

It doesn't take much of a change in that 15-20% vote spread to make or break a campaign. Relying on a totally negative style is a particularly dangerous game, especially when we are engaged in a major war on terrorism and have well over 150,000 troops involved in action.

DNC, proceed at your own peril

Walter,

Are you quoting my post to refute it, or accidentally lumping me in with the Democratic Party? I'm not saying that's bad, just inaccurate.

In spite of that, I can assure you I have very specific reasons for wanting Bush out of office based on his record as president, governor, owner of the Rangers, and as a businessman. DNC rhetoric has little to do with it.

If you just hit quote to respond to this thread, that's fine. Just wanting a clarification.

Thanks,

Doc

And I don't see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. ABB is about a guy in a position that a number of people feel has failed miserably at his job. It is sad that staunch republicans cannot remove the political party lables and view this issue from a human standpoint. This campaing is NOT called "Anybody but a Republican", but nearsighted people just don't get it. I don't like the current President, but I am not about to stoop to low blow, inaccurate jabs on the entire Republican party like others in this forum do to the DNC. I am a better person than that.

When a voter believes that Bush's policies and actions are hurting the country, it is smart to select another candidate whom s/he feels will cause less harm and maybe do some good.



If it were simply a matter of disagreement with the incumbent, it might not be as good a reason. But I think that most of the ABB crowd feels that Bush's policies are dangerous to the country and that while he is focused on preemptive war with few allies, he's neglecting or simply making bad policies domestically.

It's better when the voter selects a candidate based on positives as well as negatives. But let's look at this: Kerry is eminently qualified to be President. He has served in Congress for several years and has extensive knowledge of foreign and domestic policies; more, I might add, than George W. Bush could have hoped to have in the 2000 election.




I take issue with this statement. John Kerry has been emphasizing the needs of the American populace in the face of this jobless recovery where the administration believes that shipping jobs out of the country and not enforcing some kind of restraints on imports is somehow good. Somebody has to address this, and Bush, to date, has shown little to no concern. It is the middle class where most taxes are collected. The middle class is hurting. Ask the jobless what a $300 income tax break means to them. I've got a hint for you: nada.

When Americans are gainfully employed, they pay taxes and consume goods. This is good for the economy. When they are being laid off and they cannot receive the training they need for the jobs that the administration is supposed to be encouraging to be created by these corporations, they don't pay taxes and they consume fewer goods. There is less to go around. Mr. Bush needs to get our house in order rather than focusing his concentration only on Iraq.

(Elspeth, you're aware that John Kerry voted for the free trade agreements that prevent the import controls you're wishing for?)

-----------------------

Is "ABB" smart?

I think it's more an emotional thing. Democrats (who say "ABB," that I have heard) seethe with hatred of Bush. Many are motivated by opposition to the war. So they're canvassing for ... Kerry, who voted for the war, and says we must stay there until the job is complete -- just like Bush.

Others I hear are motivated by Bush's stated opposition to gay marriage. So they're canvassing for ... Kerry, who also states opposition to gay marriage.

Others point to the free trade agreements that Bush is associated with (rightfully I assume, but I'm not sure), and instead support ... Kerry, who voted for these agreements.

There are 2 clear differences between Kerry and Bush.

One is social issues that neither of them can have an effect on, because the Supreme Court has taken them out of the realm of democratic process. (Presidents can appoint justices subject to Senate confirmation ... and we see that most GOP-appointed judges have been as activist as Dem-appointed judges, and on the same, pro-abortion, side.)

The other is the character issue: Kerry keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth. It seems that "ABB" has come to mean "we want someone who'll lie to us." It certainly isn't the issues.

Very aware, just as I am aware that NAFTA was promoted by Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton, and if Reagan didn't have Alzheimer's, he probably would have shown up with the others for the Presidential solidarity photo-op as well. The way it was presented, NAFTA sounded like the neatest thing since sliced bread.

So what is your point? It's obviously not working the way it was intended. So is a person supposed to just sit back and let it be, because he supported it before? Or should he show some receptiveness to the American populace and its needs?

The fact that America needs to stop bleeding jobs and importing far more than it is exporting is being addressed more by one candidate (Guess who? And it's not the "compassionate conservative") than it is by the other.



Correction: It seems that ABB has come to mean, "we're tired of this guy's lies, secretiveness, obfuscation, etc. --we'll take our chances with ANYBODY else!"

George W. Bush thinks that continuing the income tax cut is going to be enough to stimulate the economy. Who else thinks that? But when John Kerry says, Don't give tax cuts to the richest 1% or so; use the money instead to help pay down the deficit, the Republicans are screaming bloody murder, using scare tactics on the middle-class television viewers, using the tired old "tax and spend liberal" rhetoric. What a pity, less lucre to sock away in the offshore bank account! How ever will the extremely wealthy survive????

But it's okay for George W. Bush to spend and spend and spend and spend and spend, as long as the middle class gets its cherished $300 or so per family income tax cut. Like that's gonna go far. Come on, this is the big solution that the Leader of the Free World has for our economic woes? But hey, he's not raising our taxes!!!! Big hairy deal.

Well, I'll give you this: Kerry does *say* things that sound appealing, to everyone. So if you want a President who'll tell you that he'll increase employment and keep us safe from terrorism, Kerry's your man! I tend to look more at actions.

If you believe the bus is heading off the cliff, does it really matter who turns it around?

However- by your very comment- you have just pointed out why ABB is such a phenom- everything he says is exactly the opposite of the way it is! No child left behind= actually left behind, world is safer from terrorism actually= more terrorism than ever, and the world is a much more dangerous place thanks to him, "Clean skies initiative"= more polution, "patriot act"= anti-american freedoms act and on and on and on.

Jaime


Im having some trouble understanding what this means Jaime, since we have what looks like only two options.
Are you saying that not voting at all is better than voting against? Only if we had a 'neither' vote and make them do it all over again.

A vote against, in this case for me is a vote for future security of the nation. Im looking at damage control for one, since this admin is about some ideological world view by military might, a freeforall rip-off of civil rights, unprecendented secrecy and spending, led by what I see as some power hungry maniacs bent on 'Changing the World'. I dont like the 'changes' they are touting. I dont want tomarows children to have to live in that world of dogmatism backed by wars, corporate greed and outdated beliefs stuffed into their heads, while footing the bill for all this, which is done now on their behalf?-uh- NOT.
Secondly, I believe this admin is setting the tone for future elections of their own as well, laws and norms, and Executive power corruption that can be easily picked up by the next Bush to run, as this one did with Iraq.

Even if it is a short term change, its not four more years to allow this precendent to get any stronger a foothold on our lives and the lives of others in the world.
I dont see Kerry as a lamer version of the status quo, at least Kerry speaks english enough to understand what the hell hes talking about, even if critisized its a big plus over the present, heck hes even been to another country before , what a concept! Anyway, Im about stopping this neocon ball from rolling too far downhill to be able to recouperate the things we stand for here and snip this madness in the bud, while we have a chance to get back on track as a healthy and hopefully peace-loving nation.

I will agree with you that neither Kerry or Bush are good investments, but I see no alternatives worth risking another 4 years of Bush Admin, so my vote will count as 'against'.

1. Is the philosophy "Anybody but Bush" smart?
-
No.
A vote for anyone else is fruitless. Unfortunately, in America, there are only two people that have ANY chance of becoming President of the United States - the Republican canidate and the Democrat canidate. This is reality. If you don't want Bush in office, you have to vote for the Democrat canidate (Kerry).
-and-
There are plenty of people that can drag the country down if they get into power.

2. Should voters vote for the candidate they agree with or vote against the candidate they disagree with? (Does it matter?)
-
People should be able to vote for the candidate that the feel is the best person for the job (regardless of who they are).
-
Reality, if you don't want Bush in office. The only candidate that you have to vote for is Kerry and you should vote for him. Any other vote is a vote for Bush. If you vote for anyone else, your vote isn't "against" Bush and, therefore, for him. If you don't vote, the same happens. The current political system forces us to vote against the candidate that we don't want in office.
-
This is inherently wrong. It shows a flaw in the political system.
A republic style vote in a democracy is inherently wrong as well. When Americans are voting for President, they vote republic style. Represetitives (electors) are elected to make the "true" vote for President. If it was a democratic vote, the populuar vote (one person-one vote) would determine who is President.
People need to wake up to the fact that Americans live in a plutocractic republic and not a democracy.
If it does matter, Americans need to reform the political system, so that Americans can vote and all Americans voices can be heard.