Why do people consider this election so important?

[Ignoramus]

I get the sense that many people consider it urgent. Is it because of the economy, or health care? I thought it was because of the aggression against Iraq, and totalitarianism taking hold in this country.

Sadly, it seems like Kerry offers considerably less hope for the people who feel so urgently about those issues, than I would like.

I'm becoming numb as new atrocities occur, and people behave as though everything is normal.

To say that it's appalling to see concentration camps setup in Boston, just doesn't do it justice. Apparently, this does not trouble John Kerry. At least, I didn't hear anything about it.

Kerry and Edwards both use the phrase "war on terrorism" and talk about fighting terrorists and increasing the size of the military in the same sentence. So, by war, I think they mean actual physical war and they think it has a use with respect to working against terrorism.

I gather they share the terrorist philosophy that people are okay to kill if they are "those people over there", but not if they are "us".In other words, he is a supremacist in the same sense as a white supremacist, except biased by nationality instead of by race.

It seems like he is aligned with the philosophy of terrorism. That "we" will never give in to terrorists. "Their" attacks will only strengthen our resolve. Yet if we can kill the friends and family members of terrorists, they will of course be swayed by our strength and give up. In other words, we must terrorize the terrorists so that they will give up their terrorism.

Since they seem to think military action has something to do with working against terrorism, they appear to believe that terrorism isn't a phenomenon, but a thing or place that can be blown up with bombs, or that the finite number of terrorists can be convinced to gather somewhere so that they can all be annihilated.

I will vote for Kerry, because it seems like his foreign policy won't be as dangerous as Bush's, and because it will generally shift the tone of things in the country. But, I'm horribly horribly depressed. And I'm scared when I wonder how much "democrats" might be willing to compromise.

I think it's possible that some terrorist will eventually explode a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, I worry that continuing to enflame terrorists might result in human extinction.

It's good that Kerry says he wants to close access to nuclear materials, but as long our military fights fire with gasoline, it seems like human extinction in the near future might be inevitable. And in that case, none of the concerns of progressives will matter (except maybe some aspect of environmental concerns).

[wyldwolf]

1. We'll send you as our ambassador to Al Queda.

[NMDemDist2]

2. one word : SCOTUS

we have got some OLD justices that will need to be replaced soon

[Worst Username Ever]

3. One of the reasons is that 3 supreme court justices are retiring

and the prez appoints the replacements. Whoever is appointed basically determines who is the majority/ who sets policy for the next 20 years. i.e., with a pub prez, house, senate, and courts, good-bye roe v wade.

[checks-n-balances]

4. I hope you're not saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference

between Kerry and Bush.

I know Kerry isn't perfect and is probably more conservative than I wish he'd be, but most of us are just doing first things first - dumping Bushco before the damage becomes completely irreversible.

(No offense and maybe it's just me, but when you use the name "Ignoramus" and give your thread a title like this, don't you risk losing some credibility at this website? Sorry, just wondering.)

[Swede Atlanta]

5. Hello? Anybody home?

I'm sorry to be so shrill but please, get a clue!!!!

1. This pResident was not elected. He should not be considering himself up for "re-election" but rather election for the first time.

2. This administration has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the kind of transparency and openness a democracy requires. Note Kerry's statement his Vice President would not hole himself up with polluters to develop our environmental policy. They operate by stealth and sleuth.

3. Our very Constitution demands a change. Not only do laws such as the Patriot Act need to be drastically revised if not repealed, this administration has decided how it will interpret the Constitution without regard to historical and judicial precedent.

4. This administration is using every tactic in the book to keep the American people frightened of their own shadows. We have "enemy combatants" who, until the Supreme Court ruled agains them, were accorded no right to due process. This administration revs up the terrorist alert every time there is negative publicity.

5. Traditional rights such as the right of a woman to choose are under severe pressure.

6. Four more years of Bush would pack the federal courts at all levels, district, circuit and Supreme, with extremist judges who value their right-wing conservative "values" above the law. This is probably the most important thing most people do not appreciate. Federal judges are appointed for life. So a judge in his or her 30's will likely serve for 30 or 40 years. If that judge brings to chambers and courtrooms a decidedly reactionary bias, justice suffers for 2 or 3 generations.

I could go on and on but I think you should get the picture. Do I think Kerry is going to solve every problem and be as aggressive on matters such as gay rights and health care that I might wish, probably not. But he is my choice and I believe he and John Edwards will at least consider the broader effects of their policies before acting. This is the most important election in my lifetime.

[jimshoes]

7. Hear Hear!

Nice post lawdem_atlanta

[charlyvi]

6. Three words--The New Deal

* is trying to dismantle what FDR did for this country. Rather than list the programs, I will tell you the philosophy. That every working person can get ahead, that every person is intrinsically valuable, irregardless of how poor, old or sick they are. And probably the most important principle of the New Deal--the idea that those most fortunate in this society have the responsibility to help those in need. The idea that the ones with the most are obligated to help those with the least; again, the poor, old and sick.

Bush* wants to change this American identity. The ones with the most deserve it and should bear no responsibility to those less fortunate. Poverty is the result of laziness; it should be left to charity. I'll never forget Newt Gingrich's remark on Social Services for poor children--there should be orphanages for these children. FUCKING ORPHANAGES!!! The stongest (read ruthless, greedy and unscrupulous) survive and to hell with everyone else.

That is why this election is important. It will define our true character.

[emulatorloo]

8. PLEASE READ: there is a difference in foreign policy.natl security

Bush just want to invade countries.

At dem convention, there was also Much talk of working w moderate muslims, and restoring ideals of america so that the words of the terrorists lose their appeal

While Kerry will use military force if necessary. but he is not talking about Bush style war so much as surgical special ops strikes.

And that is only one tool in the tool box.

Working with our allies to stop the flow of money to terrorists.

Working with our allies' intelligence agencies to find terrorist cels and stop plots.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Tough, Brief Campaign Rhetoric Vs. His Real Foreign Policy (Read This)

I hope you understand the political necessity tough-guy campaign rhetoric aimed at the huddled masses in Middle America.

However, Kerry's actual foreign policy is something quite different. And this is not some new ideas he has come up with - he has been harping about progressive multilateralism for many years. Read through this and see how Kerry wants to get at the roots of terrorism, so we can "drain the swamps" of terrorism, and not just the symptoms.



"While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

The region's political and economic crisis is vividly captured in a recent report written by Arab scholars for the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. Let me quote:

"The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of the world has barely reached the Arab states...The freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."

According to Freedom House, there are no full-fledged democracies among the 16 Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa. The Middle East is not monolithic; there are governments making progress and struggling effectively with change in Jordan, Morocco and Qatar. But Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria are among the 10 least free nations in the world.

Political and economic participation among Arab women is the lowest in the world and more than half of Arab women are still illiterate. And these countries are among the most economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top.

Since 1980, the share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15 percent to just four percent.The same countries attracted only $13.6 billion worth of foreign direct investment in 2001. That is just $600 million - only about 5 % more than Sweden, which has only 9 million people compared to 1.3 billion people.

In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and Egypt were almost identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20 largest economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs... no prospects... no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values.

From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe.

We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

I propose the following policy goals:

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.ht...

[jimshoes]

12. This is where East meets West

What we need is a modern day Solomon to make peace between the two. I think Kerry will.

[Ignoramus]

17. Well, I hope

First, for various posters, the point of my post was not actually summed up by the subject. If I sum it up as a question, I really meant, isn't the election considered urgent by so many, mainly because of opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties. And then I said a bunch of other things which I almost never hear anyone expressing, and that I consider very important. But, do note that I am voting for Kerry.

My girlfriend also chooses to interpret Kerry optimistically. I couldn't find the link you cite. From what I read here, the parts about finding the roots of terrorism are encouraging and fundamentally more sound than Wolfowitz etc. (hehe, the spell checker wants to change this to Halfwits)

Of course, I think the idea of having Trade Associations which are unaccountable to the common people, is fundamentally anti-democratic and it is certain that the priority of such an association can not be anything be to maximize profit for corporations at the expense of the environment and people. But, it's good that he's bringing up a relationship between economics and terrorism.

Also, he expresses racism/nationalist bigotry by proposing support for Israel (the government) against Palestinians (the people). This, together with repeating Bush's propaganda ploy "war on terror" seems to indicate that he doesn't get that terrorism is an activity and philosophy, not a thing, and that treating terrorism as a thing to be bombed is terrorism and increases terrorism.

I was surprised to read someone, Cheney I think, a while back expressing something which I've been trying to say for a long time. He said that Kerry believes that terrorism is a crime like arson, not a military action. Wow! That's what I've been saying for a long time: You can't shoot arson, nor can you bomb terrorism. Sadly I don't think Kerry really does think that. He's a lot closer to thinking that than Bush, but apparently he doesn't quite get it.

I think the only answer is to address the roots of terrorism. To end the arming of the planet, and specifically the arming of Israel. To demonstrate understanding of the plight of the Palestinian people, by condemning Israeli terror, and to work with the world to arrest or intercept and kill terrorists and ban state terror. It is not an instant solution. There is no instant solution.

Essentially, law is good, terror is bad. We should use law. Countries can be legally required not to commit terrorist acts. And individual terrorists can be arrested. So that's it. Arrest terrorists. Ban state terror. The alternative is terrorism.

[George_Bonanza]

18. Actually, Kerry was perceived as being sympathetic to Palestinians

At least more than what mainstream DNC seems to advocate. There was an article on MSNBC that said that Kerry had good support among Arab-Americans because they saw him as at least more understanding of the sufferings of the Palestinians than the other candidates.

Check out this source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065640/posts

Kerry, to me, seems to be pro-Israel yet has a balanced view to understand the Palestinians.

I appreciate your dedication in voting for Kerry despite your personal reservations. God knows that there are many self-centered nitwits out there who would rather see the environment poisoned, the SCOTUS plagued, jobs shipped overseas, and the national debt exponentially expanded through four more years of Bush-style neoconservatism rather than dare voting for those Republicrats who are not holy enough for them. But Kerry is a proven man of integrity, and if his speech is any indication, he will make a great president.

[southlandshari]

24. thanks for the article

from Ha'aretz, though I wish I didn't have to access it via a link to freerepublic - not exactly a reliable source on info on Kerry.

Prior to the article, I have never seen, heard or read anything about Kerry that wasn't staunchly pro-Israel. I am surprised that there is the perception anywhere that Arab Americans think Kerry would favor - or will even be fair - to Palestinians in peace negotiations. I am married to a Palestinian American, have lived in the region, and now know many, many Arab Americans, and they have all been pretty turned off by Kerry's public stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That said, again, the Ha'aretz article gave me renewed hope for him on ths issue, especially the part about involving Clinton and Carter, two individuals who have a lot of respect in the region for their attempts to be even-handed. Both sides are now living under disasterous leaders, and our lack of leadership in negotiations the past three years has compounded the situation.

I don't want our leaders to be pro-Israel OR pro-Palestinian - I want them to be pro-peace and pro-justice for all.

[flordehinojos]

10. Well, when Kerry says he will choose an Attorney General who will uphold

the Constitution of the U.S., I think he is giving hope to those of us who are fearful of the totalitarianism that is taking hold of this country.

:-)

[eaprez]

11. Two Words...

...SUPREME COURT

[madrchsod]

13. this is really simple

do you still want a c- student running the country?
do you still want someone who has failed at everything he has done?
it`s good to look at kerry very closely to see where he stands and for me there`s alot i do not agree with him but in really what else do we have..

[mzmolly]

14. It doesn't sound like you listened to Kerry's speech?

Here's just a couple reasons *THIS ELECTION IS SO IMPORTANT*

http://home.earthlink.net/~robx/Bush/Bush.html

http://www.nrdc.org/health/default.asp

http://home.earthlink.net/~robx/Bush/Bush.html

For starters.

I suggest you stop listening to the man who said:

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." ~ Ralph Nader

Nader was WRONG in 2000 and he's f-ing WRONG or lying again.

[democratreformed]

20. In regard to the war on terrorism,

I heard John Kerry say that we need to use diplomacy and only use military might to defend ourselves against attack. I heard him say we need to defeat it with our "ideals". I heard him say that we need to use all aspects of the strenth of the United States, not just our military.

Those are exactly the things I wanted to hear.

Another thing that struck me was when he spoke out about arrogance. That is the single word that describes my problem with the current adminstration. I hate many of the things they have done, but the arrogance with which they have done it and continue to believe they can get by with it is what troubles me the most. I loved it when John Kerry pointed that out.

He also mentioned that we should not be continually bombarded with words of fear. This administration has been fear mongering to control the masses ever since 9-11. That has really alarmed me as well.

On edit: John Kerry also said that we should not lose our freedoms in this war on terror - which is exactly what has been happening. The current admin has used fear to make people actually happy to give up their rights.

Overall, in John Kerry's speech, he did an excellent job of speaking to all the issues I have been most concerned about. That tells me that he really does understand. I am able to forget about his initial vote for IWR, especially considering the atmosphere in this country at the time.

I am supremely happy with John Kerry after listening to his speech. It was a speech that pointed out what is wrong and how he will work to change it. It was a speech of optimism and hope.

[NNadir]

15. There is nothing more repulsive than self glorifying "progressives."

What I can't stand is cynical fools who can't take their cynical oversized heads out of their tight self serving asses and open their myopic eyes to see why this election is the most important that Americans have faced in generations. I am heartily sick of Repuke media absorbing flakes who don't have a clue about what they are speaking about. (For a discussion for instance of nuclear issues, for instance, you ought to head on over to DU's Energy/Environment/Science section.)

We have a very fine candidate, with an excellent record. I don't expect perfection from Mr. Kerry anymore than I would expect perfection from myself, but it seems to me that some of the most grotesquely imperfect are the loudest yelpers about the imagined faults of others.

[tedoll78]

16. Why it's important to me: the Supreme Court

As of now, the average term served on the US Supreme Court is more than 17 years. While Bush says he'd appoint justices in the mold of Scaia, Kerry aims for the more liberal end of the court.. justices like Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1976 by Gerald Ford. He's usually considered the court's most liberal justice. He has a record of poor health. His wife has been begging him to step-down. And he's the court's oldest justice.. 85. If Bush were to appoint his replacement, the court would have a 4-2-3 Conservative-Moderate-Liberal tilt to it.

Rumors of retirement have been swirling around O'Connor for quite a while now. If Bush were to appoint her replacement, the court would have a 4-1-4 tilt to it, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote on many cases. (also note that Kennedy often sides with the conservative bloc)

There's also Ginsburg, who has been battling on and off with cancer. Her retirement would be a flip from liberal to conservative also.

And finally, Rehnquist. He was appointed by Nixon - yes, Nixon - all the way back in 1973. That's over 30 years of bad votes from this guy.

If all of them were to retire, a Kerry court could end-up looking like this:
6-1-2 ... Liberal-Moderate-Conservative

A Bush court could end-up looking just the opposite:
6-1-2 ... Conservative-Moderate-Liberal


So that's my #1 issue.. and it touches so many aspects of our lives. If an administration crosses a line it shouldn't, a good court will knock it down. If bad law is passed, a good court will knock it down. If good law is passes, a good court will hold it up. If a controversial law is passed, or if a questionable executive action is taken, we can pretty much assume that these things will be challenged in court. It'd be quite advantageous if the final arena of appeals were tilted to our side.

[retread]

19. It's simple. Bush is "the worst president ever"!!!!

*

[Selwynn]

21. A response to your depression

There has never been a worse president in the last 100 years. The last four years have seen this country collapse into a place that I never - ever - believed would even be possible. I'm sorry to say this because I know its such a hot-button issue, but Iraq is not the only issue that matters, and those who act like it is are doing themselves, and the country a great disservice. But even if it was the only issue, I would rather have a president whose policies I felt didn't go far enough and continue to push for more than have a president whose policies were insane, willfully ignorant, disastrous failures and clearly and presently dangerous to the health of the united states.


I could go on and on about this current administration, but your actual concerns seem to be more philosophical in nature. You can take this as cliche, but here it comes: you should never lose hope. Hope is a choice - its not a rational estimation of probability. You don't have hope because you calculate how likely you think it will be that we'll survive the next decade or that progressive ideals will one day become mainstream. You choose hope, because you make a decision that striving for a better tomorrow, no matter what is the best and most healthy way to live.

Here's another cliche that is totally true, one way to guarantee that all your fears come true is by giving up. John Kerry and the Democratic party represents the "left" of a country where the majority PEOPLE themselves as well as the political parties - society on the whole - has moved drastically to the right over the last couple decades. People tell the truth with they call a "liberal" someone who is "out of the mainstream" because that's the way it is today. We will never, never, ever suddenly turn that trend around on a dime. So you can put to bed any fantasies about all of the sudden out of nowhere electing someone like Kucinich or Sharpton (or Cobb, or for the sake of argument, Nader though I personally believe he is a fraud.) That will never happen.

And guess what else - even if it did happen, if my some miracle fluke of low voter turn out a true progressive got elected, it would be a disaster for progressive ideals. Because without a base, without a mandate, and without any constituency in any other part of government, that president would sit in the white house and enjoy four years of being absolutely unable to move any meaningful piece of legislation anywhere or get any program off the ground. And then he would be voted out in four years as a failure while to right mocked the "disaster and farce of progressivism."

Slowly transforming the system, without changing the hearts and minds of more PEOPLE who elect, without transforming local politics and them moving to state politics and then to national congressional seats and then to the white house, progressive transformation can never be sustained. It's not enough to just to get the "right leaders." You'll never get the right leaders unless you "win the hearts and minds" of the American people over to a new era of social concern and progressive ideals. And that will never happen over night. We must continue to work together and work locally to change the mindset of society as much as supporting good leaders.

And in the meantime, John Kerry represents steps in that right and direction, rather than representing further steps toward fascism and the total breakdown of our republic. In in the end, it will always be better to have democrats in control, because that actually increases the power of minority progressives - like me - to be active and work to change a party that does not try to shoot me one sight like the other party would. We work for change under the basic banner of a kinder, gentler, though far from perfect party - and we save the country for a presidency and administration that is spiraling into hell on earth.

That's why we vote for Kerry in 2004.
Thanks,
Sel

[mzmolly]

22. Selwynn, your responses are always so thoughtful.

I would like to add to what you said about Iraq.

We have learned that Bush is DANGEROUS. He wont stop with Iraq. Kerry will.

Voting Bush out is being pro-active and pragmatic. It will also SAVE LIVES.

I can't think of anything more important myself.

:hi:

[Selwynn]

23. well, sadly they're not always ...

I get just as pissed and irrational as the next guy sometimes, but thank you.

You're right I think too - Bush is dangerous, very dangerous I believe.