My Future Vote

[Steely_Dan]

I've gotten to the point that I refuse to vote for anyone who does not have a very strong sense of conviction concerning there positions...nor would I vote for someone that does not have the courage of their convictions.

I noted a spectrum in the degree of conviction and clarity with regard to the 2004 presidential candidates. Without going through each one...let's just say that on one end was Kerry, who did not fully demonstrate the kind of conviction and clarity on specific issues that made me feel that I knew "all" aspects of his positions. Of course, I say this with due deference to the fact that issues by their very nature are seldom "black and white" but are complex and require understanding nuance. However, on the other end, we had Howard Dean. There was no question where Howard stood on the issues. I believe that this is why he struck a chord with so many of us. The same is generally true of Clark. I get the feeling that when Clark says something, I can not only believe it but I'm convinced the HE believes it.

What is one of the main reasons why the Repugs support Bush? They support him because they have the sense that he has strong convictions and sticks to them.

In summary...
We made Kerry our candidate because we perceived him as "electable" instead of believing that he fully had the courage of his convictions. Does this make Kerry a bad man? Of course not.

However, after all that has happened, and after seeing where our country has ended up under the current Administration, we cannot afford to elect someone that does not (in the strongest terms) express his beliefs with conviction and clarity.

The worse off our country becomes the more we need answers that are equal to the task...from leaders that are unambiguous and express determination in their policies.

-Paige

[FrenchieCat]

1. Here, Hear!

Not in reference to John Kerry.....as much as in reference to the fact that we must have leaders who believe in themselves and in what America could be and be able to articulate that with passion and sincerity, and not start wimpering and apologizing at the first RW cries of protest.


To boil down what you said, as I understand it....We need warriors...cause what we are doing here is attempting to save our country, and the next few elections will be the battlefield!

Without strong stance and the willingness to say what is unpopular when it's unpopular, we are doomed. We need leadership that stands for something even if it can't stand for everything!

[skipos]

2. While I agree that we need a someone who doesn't sway with the wind

we also need someone who can learn from mistakes. You wrote...

"What is one of the main reasons why the Repugs support Bush? They support him because they have the sense that he has strong convictions and sticks to them."

I think it is easy to argue, even if you are a Republican, that "sticking to his convictions" is one of Bush's biggest flaws, ie Iraq, appointing unqualified cronies, etc.

[Selatius]

3. this is true, but it also helped him get votes

People here in Mississippi say Bush was clear and decisive, while Kerry appeared to "waffle." Kerry hurt himself on the IWR terribly with these voters. There is a saying that people would rather vote for a man who is strong but wrong than one that is weak but right. I believe there is some modicum of truth to it. I think there is a difference though between having conviction and being willfully ignorant of the reality on the ground.

[skipos]

5. I agree with you, I posted because

so many DUers can't forgive a Dem politician's past vote, and I think it can be pretty ridiculous. People not wanting to support Clark because he voted for Reagan takes the cake (if you have OTHER reasons for not supporting him, I am fine with that). I do believe that Kerry said a lot of things that made him seem like a flip flopper, and we need candidates with more obvious "conviction." However, if a senator vote for the war and has now decided it was a mistake, I think that is understandable. I am much more against this war now than I was three years ago. My biggest mistake was trusting the information this administration was feeding me. I made a mistake and I learned from it. Politicians should be able to do the same.

[LSK]

4. I disagree - we need leaders who can adapt their policies

Issues are not so simple, there are usually 5 sides to each one. We already have a "leader" who sticks to one side of an issue and will not budge. I would rather have a leader who can admit he is wrong, has an open mind, is open to new ideas.

The world changes, we need leaders to change with it.

[BL611]

6. Extremism in the pursuit of liberty?

No thanks, I'll leave the Goldwater philosophy to Goldwater's party. I will stick with people who are nuanced, cautious of the dogma in their own beliefs and the exercise of power in relation to it, and willing to make pragmatic compromises for the overall good.