I was just reading an article in Esquire magazine about Kucinich.. he's an odd guy, but seems to be the most straight forward, and not willing to back down from anyone's crap. Plus he has both a plan to get troops out of Iraq, and end this useless war, and a good health care plan.

He won't make it far, but I kinda like idealists. I'd just be happy to, for once, vote FOR someone, instead of voting against someone else.


jeff

I agree... last election, i voted for Kerry.. not because I thought he was all that great, but because I really though W was a horse's ass! :-)

yeah.. the last election was such a toss-up over bad vs. worse.

I really hate having no real viable choices!

the problem is, I can't vote in the primary. I'm registered as an independant, and we don;t get that option. I kinda wish we would. I never vote down party lines, on either side. I usually vote for whoever I think is best. Dem, or Republican.

Jeff

In California, we have open primaries. In NH, independents could vote in the primary, but we had to choose Republican or Democrat at the polls. That's the only reason I've ever voted a straight ticket.
I met John Kerry and I thought he would have been a good choice.

B and I voted for Bush for the same reasons as well. Of course, being that long ago I have no idea what I had against Kerry now.

The problem for me lies in the fact that there is rarely a candidate I can really get behind, and in the 2 party system (who are we kidding, there really are only 2), there hasn't been a viable candidate since, maybe, Bill Clinton (your viewpoint on him may differ).

Jeff

I think the people I know must be more ballsy because nearly everyone I know who talks about voting outside the box does it, even though they don't hold out any hope that it might actually lead to anything. Then again, I don't know many who think outside the box, either (outside of B and myself, I can think of one person in town, and maybe a handful here). ;)

Well, lack of decent candidates might actually hinder the voting FOR someone. ;)

I just wanted to clarify my poll answers... I don't know much about the democrats running so I didn't vote for a favorite because the ones I do know about I voted for as least favorite...

In the republicans I didn't vote for a least favorite because some of them I've never even heard of.

Actually, it's McCain, Romney, and Guliani who aren't showing up for debates. They're trying to avoid audiences they know they don't stand a chance with. (IMO)

Maybe you are thinking of the NAACP GOP debate this past summer when only Tom Tancredo showed up.

What I would like is for someone to convince me to vote republican this cycle. I'd love to hear the argument. Quite frankly though, none of the candidates on either side really excite me. Hillary's OK, I guess, but the name "Clinton" creates such polarization in this country that I question her ability to win the general election even in this Dem-friendly election cycle - especially if the GOP candidate is more palatable than the current regime. Out of the rest, I guess Edwards and Obama are about the best, but Edwards is a retread and Obama is too young and inexperienced - not to mention easily targeted by GOP mud slingers (like the people who sent out the Kerry wants to ban the bible pamphlets in Georgia and West Virginia).

Here's what I want improved in the next presidency (and Congress):

America has become a plutocracy. The economic policies espoused by this current regime have decimated the American middle class. The income gap is greater now than it ever has been.

Beyond this, I am gravely concerned about our country's fiscal health. We are borrowing tremendous amounts of money from the Chinas and Saudi Arabias of the world, the former being a nouveau-riche nation with leadership whose ability to sustain its meteoric growth is questionable at best, the latter being an oppressive monarchy with no respect for the human rights that we are supposed to hold dear.

Our national borrowing habits lead into another issue that is near and dear to my heart, the exchange rate. For the first time in my lifetime, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the American dollar. The Euro trades at a 42% premium to the dollar (when the Euro started in 1999, its value was equal to the US dollar). The Korean Won is trading at or near its highest level against the dollar in years. For most of you this doesn't mean a whole lot, but living abroad it means that my money doesn't buy as much of the things we need (when we buy on the local economy). Moreover, for our economic health now and later, we need an administration who is willing to exercise fiscal responsibility over the right things. Messrs Bush and Cheney see no problem with having billions dumped into the Iraq quagmire, but Bush mightily vetoed expansion of the SCHIP program to extend insurance coverage to 6 million children. GOP congressional leaders said that the program was too big. I'm sorry, is there such a thing as insuring too many children? To me, it's not an issue THAT we are spending money, it is WHAT we are spending money on. Did we need a billion-dollar, garish embassy compound in Baghdad (built on the backs of semi-slave labour no less)? Do we need to have 170,000 troops in a country mired in a civil war; a country that doesn't want us there in the first place (not just insurgents - the hand-picked Iraqi government)? Americans need healthcare; there is little argument that our system is ass-backwards. Americans need to feel secure without having the core liberties upon which this country was founded curtailed ("Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"). Americans need to be financially secure, individually and as a country, without being overly burdened by foreign debt...

I could go on forever about the issues I'd like to see tackled, but I won't. I think the worst part is that picking a Democrat to unseat the current GOP regime is certainly no guarantee that the average American will become a priority again. In fact, the differences between the two parties seem to grow less and less with each election cycle. And while I think it would be difficult, though not impossible, to get someone as incompetent and as cronyistic as Mr Bush, I just find it hard to point to any one candidate, on either side and say that he (or, indeed, she) can help the health of the Nation and the standing of me or any other average American.

Long winded enough?

Bush ran for re-election last time. There were no contenders.

Oh and I LOVE to talk about politics as long as it's done in an adult manner and everyone agrees to disagree before hand.

Exactly!

Hah, you can't unfriend me, dork. :p

Well, you could, but that would suck. >:(

Don't even think about it!

I'm so clueless and not interested in politics, I couldn't even vote in this poll.

What should you be sorry for? lol
I just lack interest in this field, that's all. :)

I just made a post about voting in particular. I still firmly believe that not finding ones ideal candidate and voting for that person, even if said person hasn't got a shot in hell to win, is being a coward and lazy.

The whole "lessor of two evils" is a crap line fed to people to scare them to not vote for "the other guy" and nothing more.

More on this here: http://sheilamarie.livejournal.com/908424.html

That is kind of what I was saying... find the person you actually want to vote for and actually vote FOR them.

The point of not voting when both choices suck is to not support people who you'd think would suck at the job.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the two parties if there were more than superficial things delineating them. If enough citizens didn't fall into the trap, then the parties would have to take notice and actually DO something rather than play this silly game of power grabs.

I'm not saying to not vote. I used an extreme example, one where there were only two candidates on the ballot, to show that there is always another option. I did not mean that that option should be utilized all the time if ever. My point is that these two parties are essentially the same and sling just enough mud to scare people into only voting for the two parties. At some point, we, the people, have to grow a pair and teach them a lesson.

The two on the ballot was a choice between this woman who seemed to want to outlaw everything two adults could consent to (even things not viewable by the general public) just because a child "might" see it. The other was a strip club owner who was running entirely for his own interests. I just could not decide between the two, both turned my stomach.

Not too surprisingly, I took the quiz in the first link and it came up with Ron Paul. His personality kinda annoys me, from what I've seen, but that's mostly because of how exasperated he seems to get when people are being turd sandwiches and giant douches (which is often in this area). Mainly, I want someone who 1) isn't going to tax the crap out of me and give my money to people who are too lazy to work, 2) won't let big businesses get away with destroying the economy and will do something about all the dino-burning power plants and replace them with viable clean renewable power sources, and 3) isn't just a sell-out to the capitalists, and 4) will take swift, HARD action against all the wetbacks and scratchbellies that have invaded our country and run around committing crimes, smuggling drugs, using our national resources and contributing nothing. You wanna work, fine, get in line and get a goddamned Visa like everyone else. You want to cause trouble? Pop a cap in your ass!

I read about Ron Paul in Newsweek. He's very into the Constitution. He wouldn't vote for a farm bill because "there's no mention of rice in the Constitution." Gotta love that! So, he's my favorite Republican.
I think Kucinich would make a great Cabinet member or advisor. But his personality is a detriment to being President. He's way too affable.
Of the Democrats, I really do like Joe Biden. I've seen him on The Daily Show, and he seems like a real person. Which I think is how he ended up being mildly racist in his statement about Obama.
Now, I really liked Bill Richardson, until he said that being gay was a choice, and then later said that he didn't understand the question. The question was posed twice "Do you think that being gay is a choice?" He said "Yes." Either stand by it, or just say, you know, that was a stupid thing to say and I realize that now.
I do not like Hillary Clinton at this time. I think she probably has what it takes to be President, but not now. We need someone NEW and someone who isn't a slave to polls. Most candidates are, but Clinton takes it to a new level.
I think Barack Obama needs more experience before he can be an effective President. He's someone I'd like to see run in 4-8 years.
John Edwards would be acceptable. I think he at least really wants the job and knows what he needs to be good at it. Some of the Republicans, I feel they're just in it to be in it. Clinton just wants to be the first female President, I think, more than she wants to be President of the US, if that makes sense.
I was jonesing to vote. My dad has always been into politics. I rather enjoy them. I vote in the local elections, even if there's just the school board. Jack has stickers on his car seat and stroller "I voted" and "Ya vote" from when Max and I went to vote the past 2 years.

Just curious, what caused you to vote for Clinton the first time, but not the 2nd? Did you vote for Dole, or someone else?

Ahh, I was hoping to get perspective from a Clinton to Dole swit