I could not evision anything that would cause me to vote for Kerry. In my very humble view, he is a traitor.
People have mentioned GW drinking or being drunk as comparable to that. Well, I'm the first one to say, I've had those occasions in my youth when I should have been pulled off the road and slammed into a jail. Luckily, like the President, I grew up, wised up and know how fortunate I was to harm no one including myself.
Certainly, Dan Rather and his cronies who used false documentation, have done their best to ensure folks believe the President shirked his Guard duty. I wasn't there and probably most of you weren't, but at the least they've not proven he accused his fellow guard members of commiting atrocities.
Kerry, as does anyone, had the right to protest the war, but not to lie. He had the right to bring forward atrocities if he actually witnessed them and bring other witnesses to testify IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY VETERANS WHO WERE THERE, about those atrocities. But he did have a sworn duty as a member of the military to name names and take actions against those who committed those atrocities. And as long as he had not yet been discharged fully from the military he had to be bound by the oaths he had taken and how he conducted himself in his protesting and meeting in France with the enemy of America.
If he would lie then, he will lie now. If he created one more moment of horrible pain for just one POW by his words and actions, he should be walking in shame and guilt. If he created one moment of a veteran of Vietnam not being welcomed home by this country by his words and actions, he should walk in shame and guilt. Those were his words and his actions, he is accountable.
As a registered independent since I was 18 (more years than I want to admit), the despicable conduct of the much less than honorable leaders of the democratic party have caused me this year to switch to being Republican. Not because I believe that George Bush or any other Republican is perfect, not for the many, many reasons I could list that I don't like about the Democratic policies and beliefs, but because I believe that Mr. Bush and the majority, though not all, of the Republican party honestly do believe in doing what they can for us and they recognize they are human and make mistakes like the rest of us lowly humans, but like most of us, they continue to try and rectify them.
Kerry and his ilk don't seem to believe I am capable of thinking or caring for myself or my country. They present, in my opinion, a holier than thou and Godless mentality that I personally for myself don't choose to believe.
It sure is very very clear that different people can look at the same candidates and see completely different things.
I have lived and voted in many elections -- have never seen this degree of angst based on who one will vote for. I lived through Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's presidencies,and so did you -- yet I felt that one was the worse and one was the best.
Let's all go into the privacy of the voting booth and do the best we can. With any luck, our country will survive no matter the outcome.
Thank you for the sanity you have injected. One can only hope we survive and our country!
I can only hope future generations don't read "The Rise and Fall of America" the same as you can now read something (not sure of the title) called The Rise and Decline of the Roman empire.
I believe America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. If we turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world will be that we reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that stood down the Nazis and stood on the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task. But also we will signal to future presidents that as voter, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, prefering caution and embracing the mediocrity of other nations. We will inform every terrosist group on the globe that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. A steady stream of grizzly photos is all you need to break the will of the American people.
They say that the WW II is the greatest generation, but I believe they may be the last generation that understand the meaning of duty, honor and sacirfice. It is difficutlt to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many in my generation. Too many citizen today mistake "living in America" as "being an American" American has alwalys been more of an idea that a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilties.
This November, our generation, which has been absent too long must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American or fade into the oblivion we may deserve.
I am not ready to join the ranks of ordinary nations...that's why I am voting for Bush.
Has anyone noticed that the majority of the mud slinging has actually come from general population and not the candidates? Michael Moore, Swift boat ... veterens, Dan Rather and CBS, Sinclair Broadcasting. I'm sure there are others.
I've noticed that this elections seems to be uglier than past ones and I think it is because there is too much information on demand to easy and too fast!
Because I believe that a balanced federal budget is important.
Because I believe that a president should be accessible to media and others.
Because I believe that the leader's individual private faith should not determine the course of our nation. Our founding fathers had a clear vision of the separation of church and state and made it part and parcel of our constitution.
Because I believe that everyone should be equal in the eyes of our government, not treated as "less than" for any reason.
Because I believe that we are a part of the global community and that relationship is vital to the health of our nation and our global communities. This does not mean giving other nations control over us, but being aware of the impact our choices have on others and weighing those choices carefully.
Because I believe that few issues are black and white.
Because a president that admits to not reading because "he has people to do this for him" concerns me.
Neither candate is good, but given the current climate of instability and the tenacity of the anti-American forces, the US does not have the "luxury" of changing administrations. I live and work in DC and have for most of my life. I have witnessed what goes on when we change administrations .... months of chaos and jockeying for positions. Given our continued vulnerabity to attack, I repeat, we do not have the luxury of change. Slow and sometimes inept as the Bush administration seems to be, they have accomplished a lot with a Medusa-like bureaucracy that we call the US government and do have momentum in better securing us.
I was wondering if an individual's faith and not promoting it is such a valid reason for NOT voting for Mr. Bush, how does that tie in with Kerry's recent Sunday mornings at the pulpit in predominantly African American communities in Florida and so much of his faith based rhetoric throughout the debates and in speeches?
And how does that faith based thing work when there are news reports of democrats and their co-horts waiting outside churches on Sunday mornngs to protest to congregations of what they perceive to be conservative churches?
And I do wonder if a little faith in the Almighty would stop some of these folks from breaking into Republic headquarters in various states. Don't know, just curious.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-20-04 AT 05:43PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Well, let me see if I can help. x:-) Bush said, I believe in the second debate, that when it comes to picking a supreme court justice (and chances are more probable than not, it will happen during the next 4 years) he wanted to place someone who will stick to the constitution & not waver due to personal leanings, beliefs etc (I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I think I captured the essence). I cheered, however the next question came up about abortion & Kerry answered (long-winded, side stepped a bit, but eventually settled on the fact that he supported a woman's right to choose). Bush then responded first by calling Kerry on his ridiculously long response & then said he doesn't support abortion & won't have federal funds go towards it, period. A very clear cut response, but one in which a lot of men and women in the country don't believe or is in fact supported by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. His position on this topic, which may not be the case for all pro-life supporters, comes from his religious beliefs. Next, he wants/supports a constitutional amendment to say that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but this position is not supported by all men and women in the country & the compromise that may have been reached is that it's a decision to be made by individual states - not a constitutional amendment issue. He has said that this decision too comes from his religious beliefs. His faith based initiatives, and you can google this if you like, are predominantly centered around Christian social services programs and in fact, on the campaign trail back in 2000, he used two Christian social services examples - one that helped prisoners in jails and another I believe with teens and drug rehabilitation as evidence to their success. Next, in his speech to the country (which I cheered, as I was scared as he**) after 9/11 and talked about the axis of evil and listed off the countries that made up the axis of evil - he took us as a country down the road of good vs. evil and in the eyes of most of the world, with his very real faith and his proven ability to take action and work to shorten the gap between the separation of church and state, this translated to Christian vs. Muslim. Therein lies the problem.
Maybe he's the most honest candidate about his faith and how it affects his decisions or the most heartfelt with his faith, but I don't want that coloring his decisions or being given as the reason for a particular stance on a topic that affects 260 million lives. You see I'm a Christian, sounds like you're a Christian - but I don't think your denomination is probably the same as mine (Evangelical Lutheran). And mine certainly isn't the same as the President's. And there are at least 95 other people at my company that don't share the same denomination as me & may not even share the same denomination as you or the President or even have a faith. No, I like separation of church and state & I like politicians that go to church or synagogue or temple or stand naked in a circle and chant - they have something they believe in and that's how I relate to them because I do as well. I just don't want them to tell me they decided to do something or change the government and it's institutions BECAUSE of their particular faith. I would like respect for all faiths (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, etc.) and active separation of faith from government. It’s not a perfect “want” and there’s definite gray area, but I would like it to be the starting point for the discussion that ensues. Sorry about how long winded this response was – maybe I should be a John Kerry speechwriter. x;-)
You told me all the ways you believe Mr. Bush's religion and it's impact makes you uncomfortable, but you didn't answer any of my questions about kerry's visits to churches and how DOES THAT indicate separation of church and state and why is he in those pulpits on Sunday mornings?
Or any of my questions about democrats - or activists more closely looked at as leaning democrat are picketing outside "conservative" churches on Sundays.
I think I'm just questioning why there are so many "do as I say---not as I do" issues in this campaign!
Politicians visit churches to influence the parishioners to vote for them. Mr. Kerry's visits to Black churches are for the same reason (and he probably likes the good music, too).
Just as many charges are made by democrats who feel that the republicans are stealing signs, breaking into headquarters, etc.
You may not be aware of the "right wing" political leaflets put on cars during church services -- and the political-speak from many pulpits linking God's plans with the republican plans on some life issues.
"I'm just questioning why there are so many "do as I say---not as I do" issues in this campaign!"
Because both nominees want to be the next president of these United States.
And we must all remember that either way -- we have to live with the outcome.
mwild31 How can you possibly separate what you believe in from how you arrive at a decision? Not possible unless you change your mind/values/and beliefs alot! But then, you'd still be basing the most current decision on the most current belief/value at that time!
MWild; I think you ARE a speechwriter for Kerry. x:-) All of Kerry's speeches and answers are terribly convoluted and circuitous. He and his handlers intend them that way. It is terribly unclear where Kerry stands on religion or faith or secularism, simply because his words shift with the wind, depending on the polls, the audience and who he thinks remembers what he said yesterday or the day before.
Bush does not and has not said that he will make decisions because of his Christianity. I've heard him admit that he prays to God and that he has strong Christian principles. I really feel more comfortable with that than I do with a man who has vascillating moral leanings, unclear religious foundation and no strong declaration one way or the other as to what part, if any, the tenets of Godly principles play or will play in his life and the way he makes decisions.
Lieberman, remember him, is Jewish and spoke of that faith during his run for the vice presidency. I would much rather have him as a leader than someone who has no solid core or defined faith (Kerry).
I think it is impossible for a man/woman with a religious foundation of any sort to not call upon that at some point in the conduct of his behavior and decisions. I don't have a clue what a fundamentalist Lutheran is, but I would much rather have you elected for admitting that as a lifetime guiding foundation than I would have someone elected who changes his position like a chameleon or a feather in the wind.
Ms. Wild: To quote you "Maybe he's the most honest candidate about his faith and how it affects his decisions or the most heartfelt with his faith, but I don't want that coloring his decisions or being given as the reason for a particular stance on a topic that affects 260 million lives."
I'd rather have a president that I know has values based on his faith than one that constantly shoots from the hip. In my mind, there is no way one can separate his/her principles and values that have been gained through a lifetime of exploring and discovering. How does one make a judgment or an evaluation? What does one use to make an assessment? What kind of foundation exists if you toss out ones beliefs?
A person SHOULD be led by their own faith and core values; and it's the only credible way to lead. Yes, there is a way one can separate his/her principles and values in order to arrive at a decision. Simply look at what's popular and base your decision on the trend and ignore your values. That's the most shoddy system possible.
Sometimes the right thing to do is not popular and the popular thing to do is not right. I want a leader who bases decisions on values; that's security. A leader who bases decisions on trend is not a leader at all.
Thanks guys/gals for the responses. First, let me say that I'm sorry if I offended any of you or my explanation was too convuluted/confusing (it made perfect sense to me x:-)). I was just stating my opinion and I agree, it doesn't answer all of the questions - not even close. Separation of church and state is never easy to discuss (too many variables) - everything said or written just seems to scratch at the surface. Same holds true, I think, when it comes to politics and stating one's opinion or changing their opinion (x;-) National Guard), it never happens in a vacuum or without someone or a group or several groups not liking the outcome or the path of the discussion. Second, Thank goodness for the forum and the ability to post our thoughts/opinions even if we don't necessarily agree with each other. I promise in future posting to try not to confuse folks or give convulted responses. x:-)
Nor were we offended. Just bewildered at your logic- your reasons for a good way to arrive at a decision/ What are they? and how could Bush be the bad choice for making decisions based on values and beliefs? Much less values and beliefs that don't come and go with the weather!
National Guard, I am confused. Are you a Bush Supporter or Kerry supporter. It seems like I have seen you going back and forth but maybe I am thinking about someone else.
No, It's not important whether I am a Bush or Kerry supporter right now. The question I was asking mwild was how come she would not vote for Bush because he makes his decisions based on his beliefs and values. I find that confusing. If she had said she wouldn't vote for Kerry because he makes his decisions based on his beliefs and values then I would have asked the same question. Again, I find it confusing.
I know what your question was. I have noticed on the last few times you have responded you sounded like you were a Bush supporter. I am thinking you had been supporting Kerry. Maybe I am thinking about someone else.
Why do you keep asking me who I am supporting? Maybe I'm thinking of some one else. The question wasn't answered. So, why would ANYONE not support ANY PRESIDENTIAK CANDIDATE who bases his/her decisions on their beliefs and values?
"I'd rather have a president that I know has values based on his faith than one that constantly shoots from the hip. In my mind, there is no way one can separate his/her principles and values that have been gained through a lifetime of exploring and discovering. How does one make a judgment or an evaluation? What does one use to make an assessment? What kind of foundation exists if you toss out ones beliefs?"
Well Ritaanz, I don’t know if it’s square one, but I’ll give it my best shot to answer your questions. First, I don’t believe Kerry shoots from the hip – I don’t know him personally, but I think he’s taken a lot of heat for standing up for his position on the war in Vietnam (this is just one example). In my mind, someone shooting from the hip would have said it once or twice, but wouldn’t have continued their position even in the face of a lot of adversity over the course of several years – just my opinion. Next, I completely agree with your next statement, I to don’t think someone can separate his or her principles and values that they have gained through a lifetime of exploring and discovering. It’s just for me that I think tolerance/acceptance of others is a core principle/value (which I don’t always possess, but continue to strive towards). In my opinion, I don’t think Bush possesses that to THE EXTENT that I would like a President to have based on the past 4 years and his prior work at the Governor of Texas. To your other questions about making a judgment/evaluation/assessment – I agree, I don’t think you can do those things without principles or values. I think they make up the core of your person, but just don’t push or govern those principles or values on me without a lot of discussion and/or the ability to find a compromise – it’s a democracy right? Separating our religion or values/principles from whom we are to govern is tough (probably impossible), but I think it’s what politicians, with our Constitution, have the obligation to do, especially if those individual principles or values don’t represent everyone.
Our politicians have the obligation to do the impossible, you say? I want to meet the candidate whose individual principles and values represent everyone.
Comments
People have mentioned GW drinking or being drunk as comparable to that. Well, I'm the first one to say, I've had those occasions in my youth when I should have been pulled off the road and slammed into a jail. Luckily, like the President, I grew up, wised up and know how fortunate I was to harm no one including myself.
Certainly, Dan Rather and his cronies who used false documentation, have done their best to ensure folks believe the President shirked his Guard duty. I wasn't there and probably most of you weren't, but at the least they've not proven he accused his fellow guard members of commiting atrocities.
Kerry, as does anyone, had the right to protest the war, but not to lie. He had the right to bring forward atrocities if he actually witnessed them and bring other witnesses to testify IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY VETERANS WHO WERE THERE, about those atrocities. But he did have a sworn duty as a member of the military to name names and take actions against those who committed those atrocities. And as long as he had not yet been discharged fully from the military he had to be bound by the oaths he had taken and how he conducted himself in his protesting and meeting in France with the enemy of America.
If he would lie then, he will lie now. If he created one more moment of horrible pain for just one POW by his words and actions, he should be walking in shame and guilt. If he created one moment of a veteran of Vietnam not being welcomed home by this country by his words and actions, he should walk in shame and guilt. Those were his words and his actions, he is accountable.
As a registered independent since I was 18 (more years than I want to admit), the despicable conduct of the much less than honorable leaders of the democratic party have caused me this year to switch to being Republican. Not because I believe that George Bush or any other Republican is perfect, not for the many, many reasons I could list that I don't like about the Democratic policies and beliefs, but because I believe that Mr. Bush and the majority, though not all, of the Republican party honestly do believe in doing what they can for us and they recognize they are human and make mistakes like the rest of us lowly humans, but like most of us, they continue to try and rectify them.
Kerry and his ilk don't seem to believe I am capable of thinking or caring for myself or my country. They present, in my opinion, a holier than thou and Godless mentality that I personally for myself don't choose to believe.
It is Bush for me.
I have lived and voted in many elections -- have never seen this degree of angst based on who one will vote for. I lived through Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's presidencies,and so did you -- yet I felt that one was the worse and one was the best.
Let's all go into the privacy of the voting booth and do the best we can. With any luck, our country will survive no matter the outcome.
Anne in Ohio
I can only hope future generations don't read "The Rise and Fall of America" the same as you can now read something (not sure of the title) called The Rise and Decline of the Roman empire.
They say that the WW II is the greatest generation, but I believe they may be the last generation that understand the meaning of duty, honor and sacirfice. It is difficutlt to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many in my generation. Too many citizen today mistake "living in America" as "being an American" American has alwalys been more of an idea that a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilties.
This November, our generation, which has been absent too long must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American or fade into the oblivion we may deserve.
I am not ready to join the ranks of ordinary nations...that's why I am voting for Bush.
I've noticed that this elections seems to be uglier than past ones and I think it is because there is too much information on demand to easy and too fast!
Because I believe that a balanced federal budget is important.
Because I believe that a president should be accessible to media and others.
Because I believe that the leader's individual private faith should not determine the course of our nation. Our founding fathers had a clear vision of the separation of church and state and made it part and parcel of our constitution.
Because I believe that everyone should be equal in the eyes of our government, not treated as "less than" for any reason.
Because I believe that we are a part of the global community and that relationship is vital to the health of our nation and our global communities. This does not mean giving other nations control over us, but being aware of the impact our choices have on others and weighing those choices carefully.
Because I believe that few issues are black and white.
Because a president that admits to not reading because "he has people to do this for him" concerns me.
My two and half cents. Vote Bush!
And how does that faith based thing work when there are news reports of democrats and their co-horts waiting outside churches on Sunday mornngs to protest to congregations of what they perceive to be conservative churches?
And I do wonder if a little faith in the Almighty would stop some of these folks from breaking into Republic headquarters in various states. Don't know, just curious.
Maybe he's the most honest candidate about his faith and how it affects his decisions or the most heartfelt with his faith, but I don't want that coloring his decisions or being given as the reason for a particular stance on a topic that affects 260 million lives. You see I'm a Christian, sounds like you're a Christian - but I don't think your denomination is probably the same as mine (Evangelical Lutheran). And mine certainly isn't the same as the President's. And there are at least 95 other people at my company that don't share the same denomination as me & may not even share the same denomination as you or the President or even have a faith. No, I like separation of church and state & I like politicians that go to church or synagogue or temple or stand naked in a circle and chant - they have something they believe in and that's how I relate to them because I do as well. I just don't want them to tell me they decided to do something or change the government and it's institutions BECAUSE of their particular faith. I would like respect for all faiths (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, etc.) and active separation of faith from government. It’s not a perfect “want” and there’s definite gray area, but I would like it to be the starting point for the discussion that ensues. Sorry about how long winded this response was – maybe I should be a John Kerry speechwriter. x;-)
You told me all the ways you believe Mr. Bush's religion and it's impact makes you uncomfortable, but you didn't answer any of my questions about kerry's visits to churches and how DOES THAT indicate separation of church and state and why is he in those pulpits on Sunday mornings?
Or any of my questions about democrats - or activists more closely looked at as leaning democrat are picketing outside "conservative" churches on Sundays.
I think I'm just questioning why there are so many "do as I say---not as I do" issues in this campaign!
Just as many charges are made by democrats who feel that the republicans are stealing signs, breaking into headquarters, etc.
You may not be aware of the "right wing" political leaflets put on cars during church services -- and the political-speak from many pulpits linking God's plans with the republican plans on some life issues.
"I'm just questioning why there are so many "do as I say---not as I do" issues in this campaign!"
Because both nominees want to be the next president of these United States.
And we must all remember that either way -- we have to live with the outcome.
I feel safer with someone who makes a decision and stands up to the decision.
You can take the personal issues out but you must reflect on the personal values that a person stands for.
I have never been involved in politics, but this election is different.
Bush does not and has not said that he will make decisions because of his Christianity. I've heard him admit that he prays to God and that he has strong Christian principles. I really feel more comfortable with that than I do with a man who has vascillating moral leanings, unclear religious foundation and no strong declaration one way or the other as to what part, if any, the tenets of Godly principles play or will play in his life and the way he makes decisions.
Lieberman, remember him, is Jewish and spoke of that faith during his run for the vice presidency. I would much rather have him as a leader than someone who has no solid core or defined faith (Kerry).
I think it is impossible for a man/woman with a religious foundation of any sort to not call upon that at some point in the conduct of his behavior and decisions. I don't have a clue what a fundamentalist Lutheran is, but I would much rather have you elected for admitting that as a lifetime guiding foundation than I would have someone elected who changes his position like a chameleon or a feather in the wind.
To quote you "Maybe he's the most honest candidate about his faith and how it affects his decisions or the most heartfelt with his faith, but I don't want that coloring his decisions or being given as the reason for a particular stance on a topic that affects 260 million lives."
I'd rather have a president that I know has values based on his faith than one that constantly shoots from the hip. In my mind, there is no way one can separate his/her principles and values that have been gained through a lifetime of exploring and discovering. How does one make a judgment or an evaluation? What does one use to make an assessment? What kind of foundation exists if you toss out ones beliefs?
Sometimes the right thing to do is not popular and the popular thing to do is not right. I want a leader who bases decisions on values; that's security. A leader who bases decisions on trend is not a leader at all.
Well Ritaanz, I don’t know if it’s square one, but I’ll give it my best shot to answer your questions. First, I don’t believe Kerry shoots from the hip – I don’t know him personally, but I think he’s taken a lot of heat for standing up for his position on the war in Vietnam (this is just one example). In my mind, someone shooting from the hip would have said it once or twice, but wouldn’t have continued their position even in the face of a lot of adversity over the course of several years – just my opinion. Next, I completely agree with your next statement, I to don’t think someone can separate his or her principles and values that they have gained through a lifetime of exploring and discovering. It’s just for me that I think tolerance/acceptance of others is a core principle/value (which I don’t always possess, but continue to strive towards). In my opinion, I don’t think Bush possesses that to THE EXTENT that I would like a President to have based on the past 4 years and his prior work at the Governor of Texas. To your other questions about making a judgment/evaluation/assessment – I agree, I don’t think you can do those things without principles or values. I think they make up the core of your person, but just don’t push or govern those principles or values on me without a lot of discussion and/or the ability to find a compromise – it’s a democracy right? Separating our religion or values/principles from whom we are to govern is tough (probably impossible), but I think it’s what politicians, with our Constitution, have the obligation to do, especially if those individual principles or values don’t represent everyone.
I think you're confused.