NAACP Condemns NoShow Presidential Candidates
 

No-shows condemned at NAACP

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

MIAMI BEACH — Four empty chairs and blazing rhetoric at an NAACP presidential candidates forum Monday laid bare the civil rights group's anger at being spurned by President Bush and three Democrats. Those four now have no right to ask for black votes in the 2004 election, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said.


http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho...ume-inside.jpg
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume criticized three Democratic presidential candidates for skipping the group's presidential forum. By Wilfredo Lee, AP

"We are interested in people who are interested in us," Mfume said from Miami. He said the four candidates' failure to attend was an affront to African-American voters and to the 94-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

"This organization has dignity," he said. "We are not going to allow anybody, Democrat or Republican, to take it for granted."

The empty chairs onstage with six Democratic candidates were labeled for Bush, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Mfume cut them no slack despite their records. Bush is the first sitting Republican president to go to Africa, and all three absent Democrats received 100% scores for their votes in the last Congress from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

When Mfume named each of the no-shows in a morning speech, an organist played a dramatic death-knell chord. "You have now become persona non grata," he admonished the four in absentia. "Your political capital is the equivalent of Confederate dollars."

Aides to candidates who were at the forum used such words as "brutal" and "scorching" to describe the effect of the rhetoric and the empty chairs. But some said Democrats should focus their fire on Bush rather than on each other.

The level of vitriol at the NAACP surprised some camps. "Congressman Kucinich has spoken to NAACP events, and he has been warmly received," Kucinich spokesman Jeff Cohen said. "He believes NAACP members are exactly the people he's campaigning for."

Kucinich said he stayed in Washington in case important votes came up Monday evening. Lieberman was in New York for private meetings and to tape Bill O'Reilly's show for Fox News Channel.

"We can't accept every invitation that is extended," Lieberman spokesman Jano Cabrera said. He said Lieberman worked in the 1960s civil rights movement and marched with Martin Luther King. "No one should question Sen. Lieberman's commitment to civil rights, racial equality and equal opportunity."

Gephardt said he had a family obligation. Spokesman Erik Smith did not release details but said "no offense was intended" by Gephardt's decision to honor that commitment. He called Gephardt's record "exemplary" on issues that matter to African-Americans.

Democratic strategists say each candidate has received hundreds of invitations to forums and debates, far more than in previous years, because the campaign began early and because so many primaries are in the first six weeks of next year. The events are sponsored by groups representing core Democratic voters, including labor unions, women, minorities, environmentalists and senior citizens.

Smith said Gephardt received hundreds of annoyed e-mails after he did not attend a League of Conservation Voters forum in Los Angeles. "There is a great deal of pressure, and it is understandable," Smith said, referring to key Democratic constituencies.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards had planned to visit the NAACP convention the day after the presidential forum, in keeping with his pattern of trying to appear on his own rather than onstage with all his rivals. But the NAACP insisted no other time would work, so Edwards went to the forum.

"We couldn't pass up this audience. It's too important," Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said. "If you plan to be competitive in the Southern early primary states, it is arguably the most important group." She cited Virginia, Tennessee and South Carolina, where big chunks of Democratic primary voters are black.

Also attending Monday's forum: former Vermont governor Howard Dean; Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts; former senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois; and civil rights activist Al Sharpton of New York.

For the most part, candidates can choose which forums to attend and avoid recriminations.

But Mfume made clear that would not be the case this time. He said candidates, including Bush, were invited four months ago and had plenty of time to schedule an appearance. He also said the NAACP moved the event from Wednesday to Monday and changed it from a debate to a panel to accommodate the candidates.

"We don't mean to be arrogant, and we certainly are not trying to be mean-spirited," Mfume said. But he said candidates who can't find time to share their thoughts on leadership at the annual NAACP convention "really have no legitimacy going into our communities later and then asking for and expecting our votes. Those days are long since gone."

In 2000, Bush tried to appeal to black voters and even spoke at the NAACP convention. But nine in 10 black voters chose the Democratic ticket of Al Gore and Lieberman. Bush has not attended the convention since becoming president. Lieberman has been doing well among black voters in national polls, partly because he is well-known from the 2000 race.

The NAACP spent $10.5 million in 2000 on its first voter registration and education campaign. The group registered 2 million voters then and is aiming to add another 2 million by November 2004.

It's not clear how much influence the NAACP will have in discouraging support for the no-shows.

Mfume says African-American voters will treat the absences as "a barometer" of commitment to them. "People are sick and tired of having others expect that we will act a certain way or vote a certain way," he said. "This is a special affront to the larger black community when for whatever reason the need to be here is not a priority."

Contributing: Contributing: Contributing: Associated Press

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...14-naacp_x.htm

Carol Moseley Braun Announces 2004 Run
1 hour, 12 minutes ago

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrat Carol Moseley Braun, the only black woman to
serve in the U.S. Senate, formally declared her candidacy for the
president Monday, forging ahead with a long-shot bid in an otherwise
all-male contest for the White House.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Carol Moseley Braun

Carol Moseley Braun Announces 2004 Run
(AP Video)



"I am uniquely qualified to do the job of president, and I offer the
clearest alternative to this current administration, whose only new
idea has been pre-emptive war and a huge new bureaucracy," Braun said
in a low-key appearance at Howard University. Her only introduction
came from her 26-year-old son, Matthew Braun.


"A woman can fix the mess they have created, because we are
practical, we are not afraid of partnerships and we are committed to
making the world better for our children."


Braun stunned the political establishment in 1992 — the "Year of the
Woman" — unseating an incumbent Democratic senator in the primary,
two-term lawmaker Alan Dixon, on her way to what was once considered
an improbable victory in November.


Her election was heralded as an advance for women and minorities, but
her popularity fell amid accusations that she exercised poor judgment
in visiting Nigeria's brutal former dictator Sani Abacha and misused
campaign funds.


A campaign finance investigation cleared Braun, but she lost her seat
to well-funded Republican challenger Peter Fitzgerald in 1998. After
the defeat, President Clinton (news - web sites) appointed her
ambassador to New Zealand.


Braun used her announcement speech to present her vision for the
future — "an American renaissance" — and criticize President Bush
(news - web sites)'s record on national security and the economy.
Unlike the official campaign announcements by some of her nine
rivals, Braun took questions from a handful of Howard University
students and reporters following her speech. She fielded broad
questions about poverty and children, and more specific queries about
the command and control of U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites).


A fierce opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, Braun said the
United States will work to ensure a peaceful Iraq. "Americans don't
cut and run, we have to see this misadventure through," she said.


Monday's kickoff schedule started with speeches at two historically
black colleges — Howard and Benedict College in Columbia, S.C.
Braun's final appearance was scheduled in her home town of Chicago,
where she got her start in politics 25 years ago with election to the
Illinois Legislature.


During months of campaigning, Braun has struggled to build a fund-
raising network. She has pleaded for financial support, especially
when speaking to women's groups, but raised less than $250,000 in the
first half of the year.


Last month, she picked up her first two major endorsements from the
National Organization for Women (news - web sites) and the National
Women's Political Caucus. Leaders of both groups said they would help
raise money for her among their members, and their support gave Braun
encouragement to continue her bid beyond the exploratory phase.


Braun ranks near the bottom in most surveys, but some polls show her
with more support than some of her better-financed rivals. She ranks
higher in some polls of black voters.


She has avoided much of the intra-party fighting of her rivals who
confront each other in an effort to rise to the top of the field. Her
criticism has been focused on President Bush's policies at home and
abroad.


"America is at a tipping point — if we stay the course we are on now,
we won't recognize this country five years from now," she said in
Monday's speech. "But if we shift gears, try another way, tap some of
the talent that has been relegated to the sidelines of leadership, we
can heal and renew and save our country."


___


On the Net:


Braun's campaign:

http://www.carolforpresident.com

It is nice to see that members of your organization like Ms. Carol Moseley Braun are making real progress in our communities and in the political arena. She cares about our people and she cares about the environment. After reviewing her plight, I'd have to see she fights for the welfare of all of the people. Can you imagine that. MADAME PRESIDENT CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN.:D :)

Oh, and President Kweisi Mfume ain't playin'. If they haven't realized it yet, they need to know. He has a power house behind him. I suggest they drop what ever they thought they had planned the next time they recieve an invite.

I feel so proud to have these two as my community leaders.

Braun to Quit Presidential Bid, Back Dean
43 minutes ago

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

FORT DODGE, Iowa - Carol Moseley Braun (news - web sites) plans to end her White House bid Thursday, leaving an all-male field for the presidency and giving her support to Democratic front-runner Howard Dean (news - web sites).


AP Photo


Reuters
Slideshow: Carol Moseley Braun




Braun was to officially endorse the former Vermont governor Thursday afternoon during an appearance at Carroll High School in Carroll, Iowa, said Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi.


Dean said Wednesday that he welcomed the endorsement of the former senator from Illinois.


"She's a principled person. We just hit it off. I like her a lot," Dean told reporters at a hotel in Fort Dodge, where he was spending the night after starting a statewide bus tour.


"It's going to be a big help to us," he said.


Trippi said Braun approached Dean after a recent debate and told him she was considering leaving the race and backing him.


One of two black candidates in the campaign, Braun is giving Dean her endorsement even as he has faced questions about his record on race issues, including his lack of minority Cabinet members during his five terms as Vermont governor.


Braun jumped to Dean's defense in a debate last Sunday when Al Sharpton (news - web sites), the other black candidate in the Democratic field, accused the former governor of trivializing race issues.


Braun never broke out of single digits in national and state polls and failed to qualify for several state ballots.


And though she had been endorsed by two influential women's groups — the National Organization for Women (news - web sites) and the National Women's Political Caucus — that support failed to translate into financial support. Braun struggled to raise money while running up thousands of dollars in debt. She also missed the deadline to file paperwork for the initial round of federal campaign money, delaying for several weeks the receipt of any federal matching funds, expected to amount to several hundred thousand dollars,


Even her own campaign manager, Patricia Ireland, had said publicly that there was no way Braun could win the nomination.


She leaves the race after having little impact on it, except for some bright moments in debates. Braun often stressed during the campaign that she was running for president because it was time to "take the 'Men Only' sign off the White House door."


The run for president also may have helped Braun rehabilitate her image. Elected to the Senate in 1992 during the "Year of the Woman," Braun lost the seat after one term due to allegations about her ethics and improper campaign spending.


Braun had also fallen under criticism for meeting in 1996 with Gen. Sani Abacha, the late dictator of Nigeria who had been accused of myriad human rights violations, during a trip to the country for a friend's memorial. She did not tell the State Department in advance, which she later said she regretted not doing.


After losing the seat, President Clinton (news - web sites) named her ambassador to New Zealand.


Braun is the second Democratic presidential candidate to pull out of the race before the start of voting on Jan. 19 with the Iowa caucuses. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida withdrew from the race on Oct. 6.


___





http://www.carolforpresident.com

Dang. Even though she wasn't my candidate of choice (I still haven't made a choice, to be honest), I was hoping she'd stay in the race just so that her ideas and principles would continue to be articulated. :(

I'm also sad to see Sen. Braun leave the race. She had credibility and real world political experience, unlike Rev. Al.

I'm also undecided about backing a candidate (unless Dean goes to the center, he's going to be killed in the general election. I want somebody who can take out Boosh.)

...don't know if it's just the death-rattle before rigor mortis sets in, but in some polls Wesley Clark, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry, have been see as closing the gap on Dr. Dean.

primary fights, for all their idealized energy, seem often to do more harm than good to the candidate that emerges for the general election.

Completely agree with this because the primaries generally bring out the most fervent people, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right. In California, with the GOP, there were all these right-wingers nominated in the primary that got smacked by Demos. Until Repubs decided to get behind electable Gubuhnaytor Ah-nold Schwannegar (sic).

:( She was my only choice

It's a case of her leaving before or after the primaries. Sadly, she really didn't have a chance. So, by dropping out now, she can hopefully help Dean out a bit. For me, the fact that she lost as an incumbent really made me doubt her chances in a presidential race (aside from the whole being a Black woman thing).

He will shift to the center after the primaries. Typically, people are a little more liberal during the primary because they are appealing to their party and they are running against people who hold similar positions. After he wins (wishful thinking!!) Iowa and New Hampshire, he will shift to the center.

I was chosen as a Delegate for my district and her campaign office manager left me a message last evening in regards to this and I have not been right since. I respect her decision and understand completely.

Dean will try to shift, I'm sure, but come the general election, President Bush will hang these "liberal" quotes/positions (that won him the nomination) around his neck and squeeze at every political opportunity. (Of course, some will say Dean, or whomever will have 4 years of material to use on GWB, too).

R's do the same when vying for the White House, but it seems they have a more organized plan, with much less bloodletting, and they seem to reunite as a party faster than the Ds. Consider this, since 1976, EVERY Repub presidential ticket has featured either a Bush or a Dole....

Re: NAACP Condemns NoShow Presidential Candidates
 

First, the NAACP does not represent my beliefs..and I resent them asserting that they represent the "African American community"
Second, why would any Republican waste time going to an organization where the people vote 90% Republican and according to the Polls hate them and their party??
Third, how dare Mfume suggest that because they don't attend, they obviously don't care about "our" community???
WHEN and ONLY WHEN African Americans stop voting as if we're a monolithic group of people...will Republicans take us seriously.. We have seriously bought into the rhetoric that Repubs are a group of homophobic and racist folks....and that the Dems actually do "care" about this community

Hell if I was Bush..I wouldn't have gone either.

Re: Re: NAACP Condemns NoShow Presidential Candidates
 

"why would any Republican waste time going to an organization where the people vote 90% (Democratic) and according to the Polls hate them and their party??"

Because you might want to reduce your opponent's 90 percent advantage to maybe 70 or 60 percent one day? I don't think AA's "hate" Rs, but I leave you your comment.

...I agree that Mfume's rhetoric went a bit overboard, but it's just interest group politics on display. It's the same thing the Natl. Rifle Assocation, and other "conservative" groups, practice (albeit not as visibly as the NAACP did) regularly. If your constituency makes up a substantial part of a party's political base, you expect a certain level of treatment by the candidate(s).

Love_Spell, if I could give you a high-five across the Internet, I would. I totally agree with everything you said in your post, but on the other hand, if the Republicans are smart -- and I know they are -- they'll need to start at least giving the APPEARANCE of being serious about courting black voters, especially young professional blacks who are on the fence with respect to the Dems.

Re: Re: Re: NAACP Condemns NoShow Presidential Candidates
 

TonyB06, In an Ideal world what you said would make sense. But AA's have showed that we are REactive, not PROactive and that no matter what, we will vote Democrat. Trent Lott had to step down for his comments, but Senator___ I can't remember his name right now actually said "NIGGER" and he was excused...because he's a DEMOCRAT.. When you've been in the dark so long....eventually your eyes will adjust and things will seem clear to you. (just like at the club ;)

And finally, I'm glad you brought this up. If the NAACP wishes to endorse a political candidate, then they should become an interest group and change their status from non-profit. But I suppose that would hurt their bottom line so they don't want to do that right?? :mad: :rolleyes: :eek:

Im not sure what you mean by you are "leaving me my comment" so I'll leave that alone

I don't understand why we even should affiliate with ANY of the parties (Dem or Rep.) to tell the truth. :confused: Neither one of them truly represents us. We are so much more than a "civil rights" issue which is something that both parties try to play on.

I truly believe that even if we shifted to the Rep. party, the same thing would happen (after some years, our vote/support being taken for granted).

Re: Re: Re: Re: NAACP Condemns NoShow Presidential Candidates
 

LS6,
Nor, in an ideal world, would I think anyone would credibly assume that 12, 13 million people are monolitic in their thinking. This is usually the argument from political operatives who either don't care to or don't know how to put votes in play,---> voter cultivation based on credible and substantive policy initiatives. Recognize and go after the economic/educational/social differences within the AfAm community. Heck, it's basic marketing; we're no more complex than any other "voting bloc" a political entitly sincerely wanted to pursue.

I regularly vote D and R, depending on the candidate's position/sincerity and the issue; and I know hundreds of similarly situated AAs who do likewise. I respect and admire the work and political/physical risk Rev. Jesse Jackson (Omega) has made on behalf of black folk for 30+ years, but there are several issues on which he and I will probably never agree. Nor have I ever cast a vote because "Jesse tole me to do so."

I'll agree with you that there's a good debate to be had on how beneficial/non-beneficial the D Party has been for Af-Ams. But IMO, that's not at all a compelling reason to just automatically give my vote to anyone else. Black folk, like everybody else, vote in our own self-interest. Every election cycle Ds and Rs both know how to come get my vote. The one that wins it is the one that works hardest for it.

...and I think the Senator you alluded to was most likely Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., someone I seriously doubt I'd ever vote for.

peace to ya. ;)

If the GOP wants to get serious about courting young professional blacks, however, they have got to expunge themselves of the "good ol' boy" Dixiecrat-descended element that still rolls hard in that party. I'm talking people like Sen. Lott and Helms, etc.

Exactly, I vote for the best candidate, not solely along party lines. However, I refuse to become a member of the GOP because I resent the way in which they forward those openly racist people. Also, people who forward lofty moral ideals and betray them (ie Lott, Thurmond, Gingrich, etc).

I'm tellin' ya'll...we should start the Brown Party...a party which is neither decidely conservative nor liberal, but pushes the issues which directly and specifically affect the Black and Latino communities

A nice idea, but since there are so many issues within our individual communities -- even within the same ethnic group -- I'm not sure it would be viable.

BTW - according to CNN, the Associated Press reported that CMB took money from the Dean campaign to drop out of the race. I'm going to try to find the article, but if it's true, what do ya'll think of that?

With the way that the more moderate GOPers distanced themselves from Lott when all that mess hit the fan, I think this will actually happen in our lifetime.

And you know... part of me likes the idea of a lot of us buppies signing up to the GOP in droves and changing the party from the inside. The problem (okay, one of the problems) with the African Americans that are currently in the GOP ranks is that there simply aren't enough of them to make an impact. If more of us were willing to go out on a limb and completely abandon the Democratic party and register as GOPers, I think people would stand up and take notice.

Please find that article. That would just be very :eek: if she did. If anything why not choose her as your running mate. I know I know, crack kills and America still is not ready for a woman VP let alone a Blackwoman VP. :(

We need too!

Well, no party completely represents its supporters. The key is agreeing on a platform and sticking with it.

Now this idea, I love!! History has shown that this is possible. It's happened before. It reminds me of a concept that one of my professors suggested in terms of Black people taking over a state. We simply all need to just move there. Naturally, the demographics will change and we will begin to control the government and other things. Not just move to the big cities, but all over the state. Pick a small state and just move there! Honestly, we can do the same thing with tht Republican party. However, we talk about it, instead of "being about it". Our big problem!!

I'm not as politically savey as I'd like to be. I pay very close attention to current events (reading the NYTimes every day and watching the news).

Braun backing Dean does sway my position (I must admit).

I liked the way Kerry communicated his message on the news last night and this morning. He talked about fighting unemployment, tax cut's for the wealthy, health care for most (reducing premiums) ... It all sounds good.

Because Dean has Braun's endorsement, I plan on investigating his platform a little more closely.

Like many of you said previously, neither the D's or the R's really have Afr-Amer interests at heart. The thing is, if your not a registered D or R, you can't vote during certain elections. That is how I understand the law. You have to be one or the other for your vote to count. We are stuck with chosing the lesser of two evils.

However, let's not even get "all caught up" on thinking that our votes count as much as we'd like to think they do. Votes weren't counted in DC (and in FL) and nobody seems to care. Is Bush REALLY suppose to be our President? We shouldn't forget these injustices as we gain political strength.

When are the primaries and in what states? I am not very political savvy but I want to make an informed vote this year.

NH has it's Presidential Primary- January 27, 2004. Then they have their State Primary - September 14, 2004 and their State General Election - November 2, 2004.

I have to find out the difference between the three.

I thought I would add this..
 

from BellaOnlineThe Difference Between Primaries and Caucuses

The New Year is officially here and the Democratic Party presidential race continues to heat up. What’s on the minds of the candidates lately? Political primary and caucus season, of course. Leading up to the party convention this July in Boston, these elections help determine who will receive the party’s nomination. But, what is the difference between the primaries held in some states and the caucuses held in others, and what is their purpose?

Both primaries and caucuses allow registered voters to influence a political party’s nomination process. Every state is assigned a certain number of delegates (based upon population) who will attend the national convention and vote to select the party nominee. When citizens vote for a particular candidate, they are really voting to allocate their state’s delegates to each candidate. The Democratic Party stipulates that delegates are apportioned based upon the percentage of votes a candidate receives.

In addition to these pledged delegates, the Democratic Party also has unpledged delegates or superdelegates who comprise 15% of the total delegate pool. These superdelegates are high-ranking party and elected officials such as governors, congressional representatives, and DNC members. They may vote to nominate any candidate they choose and are not bound by the state’s popular vote.

The two main ways of assigning delegates are primaries and caucuses. A primary is simply an election that allows voters to go to the polls and cast their ballot for a candidate, thus determining their percentage of the state’s delegates. A caucus is a state convention that provides a public place for party members to gather, hear speeches, and vote for delegates to represent candidates at the national convention. Some states only allow voters to participate in their party’s primary while other states have no party restrictions and allow voters to participate in any one primary they choose.


January 13
District of Columbia

January 19
Iowa

January 27
New Hampshire

February 3
Arizona
Delaware
Missouri
New Mexico
North Dakota
South Carolina
Oklahoma

February 7
Michigan
Washington

February 8
Maine

February 10
Tennessee
Virginia

February 17
Wisconsin

Februrary 24
Idaho

February 27
Utah

March 2
Minnesota
California
Connecticut
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont

March 9
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi

March 13
Kansas

March 14
Nevada*

March 16
Illinois

March 20
Wyoming

April 6
Wisconsin

April 13
Colorado

April 27
Pennsylvania

May 4
Indiana
North Carolina

May 11
Nebraska
West Virginia

May 18
Oregon
Arkansas
Kentucky

May 25
Idaho

May 27
Washington

June 1
Alabama
South Dakota

June 8
Montana
New Jersey

August 24
Alaska*


* NOTE: Both Alaska and Nevada will not hold 2004 primaries. Alaska's official primary will be held on August 24, which is after the Democratic Convention, but we're betting the state party will hold caucuses to select delegates some time in the spring. In 2000, Nevada held its caucuses on March 12. If they stick to the same day of the week, their caucuses would be held on March 14, 2004. If you know more, please email us the info. Thanks.

Abaici, thanks for this info. I found something last night that listed it state by state while GC was down.

Edwards wins SC state primary.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=536&ncid=536



John Edwards Dem 381 42.4% 0
John Kerry Dem 271 30.1% 0
Wesley Clark Dem 105 11.7% 0
Howard Dean Dem 67 7.5% 0
Al Sharpton Dem 52 5.8% 0
Joe Lieberman Dem 16 1.8% 0
Dennis Kucinich Dem 5 0.6% 0
Dick Gephardt Dem 2 0.2% 0
Carol Moseley Braun Dem 0 0.0% 0

This was a table, but it does not translate well on GC.

kerry is projected to win the arizona primary (or caucus ?)

apparently, if bush loses (and were all hoping he goes down!) then kerry is supposedly the best candidate for the dems. (of course, politicians tell us whats good b4 they get elected. well see where all those tax cuts and gay rights laws go after hes in office :rolleyes:

Lieberman dropped out yesterday.

Kerry won 5 states:

Arizona
Missouri
Delaware
New Mexico
North Dakota


Clark won Oklahoma.

Not sure why this thread is still open since there is one in the AKA forum on the Election and we're supposed to be avoiding duplicate threads...

But anyway...

What are reasons to vote for Kerry besides the fact that voting for Kerry is a vote against G. Bush. I mean I know people hate GWB, but a lot of people don't even know what Kerry stands for. Is that really the basis for voting for the President of the U.S?

I do believe that this thread was started back in July 2003. Thanks.

That's reason enough for me.

I think Kerry is a media fabrication. I think he has integrity issues. I think he's wishy-washy, and I find his stentorian delivery off-putting. I think he flip-flops more than cheap drugstore sandals. The fact that he threw away someone else's medals at that demonstration so long ago shows me that he's all about grand gestures, not about actual convictions.

But you know what? He's not in the back pocket of evangelical Christians who want to set social policy in this country back 100 years. He didn't lie to get us into an unwinnable war just so he could avenge his father's defeat. He's not an intellectual midget -- at least it seems that he got SOMETHING out of Yale other than cocaine connections.

Bush drones on and on about how Saddam was a madman, and how he's a dangerous man. But to me, there's no more dangerous man than someone with a C- brain being in control of the last remaining superpower. There's nothing more dangerous than having someone who is driven by a modern-day Manifest Destiny ideology when it comes to International Relations. Bush and his cronies are colonists and imperialists in every negative sense of the word, and they don't care whose lives are destroyed in the process -- even the lives of those Americans who volunteered to support and defend the Constitution. And while we're on the Constitution, he wants to re-introduce the language of hate and divisiveness in the document that is the cornerstone of our democracy! Granted the language was already there, but America has made great strides in becoming a place where all are protected (at least at the Judicial level), and he wants to set hundreds of years of civil and social progress back just because the Fundies told him to.

So yeah, I'm only voting for Kerry just so GWB is handed his coat and hat come November. But I feel completely justified in making that decision.

Whoever gets the nomination, I hope that he can beat Baby Bush.

SC

Candidate Info
 

Since it looks to be a Bush vs. Kerry election (A Skulls and Bones showdown :D ), here is a quick glance as to where each candidate stands:


http://www.presidentmatch.com/Compare.jsp2?idlist=5|10|


Hmmm...I noticed they BOTH favor NAFTA. Many Americans (across party lines) believe this agreement has contributed GREATLY to our economy's current state (massive job loses, large quantities of work being sent outside the US, etc.).

:)

The intro to your post made is reason enough to vote for NADER! :D

I've voted for him before, so it's not like it would be a stretch. When I voted for him in 2000, it was because I wanted there to be a different voice in the political process. Nader was fighting to introduce a third party into the American system, a very noble goal.

HOWEVER, this time around, Ralph is running out of vanity, not out of any desire to see a third party take shape, and he won't get my vote this time around.