Welcome to six degrees of voting.com

Kerry seems to me to be a moral coward, the ultimate "me, too"-er who says and does whatever seems to be popular or trendy at the time. When ifghting in Vietnam was patrotic he wanted to be part of that. When the tide of public opinion turned against it he did too and became a radical war protestor when radical war protestors were the height of cool. As a Massachutes senator and Ted Kennedy's junior he was a classic anti-military liberal. After 9/11 changed the current culture he burnished his tough-on-terror credentials, including voting for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. When that soured he voted against funding for it and became a mouthpiece for his party's anti-war base, saying the president somehow tricked him by using the authorization to go to war he voted for in the wrong way. Now he is trying to balance his appeal to the hawks and doves- he said Iraq was and was not a threat <i>in the same debate!</i> This guy will say and do anything to further his political career. How... ...

President Bush has been strong in leading our country, though he appears reckless at times. Kerry is simply not predictable. Not a single person can predict what direction he would take this country were he elected. Libertarian and Green Party candidates offer another option, but as of yet are not viable options. Kerry needs to solidify his position on issues and Bush needs to offer detailed plans to improve our economy and political status abroad before I can make my decision.

I'm a consertive and pro-life issues are very important to me. I think that GB is doing a good job during a difficult time in our country. The economy was on a downward slide when he took office and he should not take the blame for what the democrats set in motion.

I will be voting blue for a few reasons. One, is for the woman's right to choose. I think a lot of the pro-life v pro-choice gets mixed up and people forget that Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. What it is IS the right for a woman to choose what happens to her body. No gov't has the right to choose that for us. Bush has already shown and stated he is not in favor of choice and with potential Supreme Court changes in the future, I don't want to risk it with a president who doesn't feel the women have the right to choose.

Also, the war. In my opinion, Bush did not make the right choices but its too late for that. He did isolate us from other countries and their willingness to help and I think that now is a good time for Kerry to go in and try to repair what has already been broken.

because the sound of red's voice makes my skin crawl

I'm voting Republican because the events of the next four years are too important to leave to a senator who hasn't managed to do anything of real importance in 20 years. There is nothing of what I've heard and what I've seen of John Kerry that indicates to me that he has any real strength of character, let alone the kind of decision-making abilities and leadership that we need. I am not (as someone patronisingly suggested to another Republican voter) being swayed by commercials and sound-bytes. I've seen Kerry, I've heard him and John Edwards. They aren't persuasive, and voting for somebody because he's NOT somebody else is ridiculous.

For a Democrat's take on why he's not voting for Kerry, check this out
http://www.leanwrite.com/politics/041015openletter.html

First, the disclaimer: I strongly dislike what he’s done with the Patriot Act and support the ACLU’s efforts to fight it, but that’s because I’m essentially a lowercase-l libertarian at heart; there are plenty of policies and topics (drug laws, property rights, privacy) where I disagree with Bush. However, every election is different and this time around I’m something approaching a single-issue voter, not unlike the folks who vote solely on healthcare, gun rights, abortion, etc. My single issue: Who is going to protect the country (not just my sorry ass) better? Neither man will do an ideal job, but I believe Bush will do a better job. “Protect the country” to me means many things; some of them are probably common to lots of folks (i.e., concerns about terrorist activity), but it also means protecting the Constitution against those who want to rework it on a wholesale basis. Bush is a pretty miserable conservative, but his approach is more conservative than Kerry’s – and on... ...

Part of my reason to vote democratic is that I am disgusted with the Bush administration and its total disregard for honesty, ethics or civil rights. I also find it ironic that Bush senior ran on his war record but Bush Jr who shirked his duty is going after Kerry's record.

George Bush scares the hell out of me.

Because I cannot imagine how people can vote for George Bush- a mean sprited, thoughtless and destuctive puppet. And because I would like to be proud to be an American when I travel.

Hi Nader voters - I immensely respect your stand on many issues... I just want to implore you *please* not to give us George W. Bush again in this election! Think about this: even with the mass disenfranchisement of Democratic-leaning minority voters that shamefully took place in GWB's brother's state, Al Gore STILL would have won Florida in 2000 with a mere 537 of the 97,488 votes Ralph garnered there.

And as we all know, if Gore had won Florida, we wouldn't have had the past four years of utter disaster that we have had under W. Please don't give us four more years of corruption and destruction under the Bush family monarchy... the country and the world cannot take any more. Your man Ralph stands for some great things. But his candidacy this year is far more about him needing to feed his massive ego and his need for continual attention (at any cost) than it is about any of us.

PLEASE, just read the article, look at the numbers, engage in a little introspection, and think... ...

I vote for more republicans than democrats.

I am voting gold to end the war and bring our troops home now, to get government out of health care, to repeal the Patriot Act, to end corporate welfare, to end the drug war, to reduce the size of the federal government, and to restore the Bill of Rights. My candidate may not win, but I will sleep peacefully on election night knowing I did not contribute to the current state of affairs.

voting for the lesser of two evils

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president is an AMAZING man. I can't even call him a politician, because he's a true patriot and statesman. I've met him on three occasions and he's among my "Top 3" favorite people on this planet.....EVER! He's so honest and not afraid to say what needs to be said, regardless of what others may think. He's like Howard Roark - he doesn't even think about all the Elsworth Toohey's in this world - he's too busy working and being the incredible person that he is. GO MICHAEL!

The Republicans think they can run your life best. The Democrats think they can run your life best. The Greens think they can run you life best. The Libertarians think you can run your life best!

I'm voting Republican for various reasons. I feel that President Bush should have the opportunity to finish what he started-Kerry isn't dedicated enough. On Monday he'll say yes, on Tuesday, no. What effect will that have on our guys overseas? Those who are attacking us in Iraq will just gain more support and kill more of our guys. Those who have begun to have a little respect for our willingness to fight back, will lose that respect. I think Bush has shown that we're willing and able to do what it takes to fight back.

I want government to get smaller, not larger. Elected Democrats and Republicans continually increase government. Greens would if elected.

In most races, there is no way my vote will be the deciding one. I might as well vote my conscience. And if it is the deciding vote, so much the better.

Besides, if enough people do vote Libertarian, in time there will be a political party that gets its candidates elected and does reduce government. Might be the Republicans, might be the Libertarians, might some other party.

http://www.lp.org http://www.lpmo.org

I'm voting for Michael Badnarik for President and then straight-ticket Libertarian for the rest of the ballot. Both of the major party candidates will increase spending, increase the size of government, continue the war in Iraq, and continue to erode our civil liberties! I'm voting for a candidate who believes in what I believe in, someone for whom I can feel PROUD to vote!

Your only real choice is whether you want things to get better (albeit probably slowly) or worse (very quickly). Start by reading http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/10/13/notes101304.DTL&nl=fix. It should give you some insight into where Dubya (and his appointed legacies) will lead this country.

Then for a bit of perspective try http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-if-george-w-bush-had-been-elected.html! It boils down what George W. Bush has done for (and to) our country (and it's reputation in the world). It's written from an alternate reality point-of-view as if President Gore hadn't been elected in year 2000 and George W. Bush had been.

Then, after that, please remember that this country will elect someone from either the Democratic or Republican parties. Votes cast for any other candidate will only serve as a sort of proxy vote for the Republicans to siphon votes away from Sen. John Kerry. This is the political reality of it all. Until (or unless) we get... ...

"Actually modern politics are completely bipartisan. One may either be libertarian, or wrong."

If you care about civil rights, the constitution, and individual liberty, visit http://www.lp.org/

The Libertarian Party comes much closer to my personal feelings about the role of government in our lives and in the world. Michael Badnarik is the only candidate in this election who agrees with me: that we who live in a country we like to call "free" actually start acting like we do, taking personal responsibilities and enjoying the resultant freedom. Michael is probably the only candidate on the ballot in 48 states who has actually even READ the Constitution of the United States, and he is most definitely the only candidate who acts as if he understands and respects it. George Bush wants you to trust him to run your life. John Kerry wants you to trust him to run your life. Michael Badnarik trusts YOU to run your life, and me to run mine, and that is the kind of country I want to live in, but it is very far from the kind of country we currently have.

Michael Badnarik has -my- vote on Election Day. This isn't a horserace, it is a chance to voice what kind of government we... ...

The Libertarian party represents most of my views politically. Government is too large. Taxes are too high. Iraq is an unwinnable war. Bush is dangerous to our country, Kerry is dangerous to our country, Ralph Nader is a non-entity. Vote Badnarik 2004!

Although both parties have.. shall we say, "streched the truth" in a few areas. I personally feel the far greater majority has come from the Republicans.

The Nation is in worse shape than ever, we are in more danger than before, and most of our staunchest allies are not by our side on most of our worldly exploits. Mr. Bush and crew have continually ignored signs and the vast majority of experts in his drive to dominate mid-east oil. Do not be fooled by rhetorac. Yes, I know we must fix what we have gotten ourselves into. I'm not foolish enough to say "Let's get them out of there now." And I support the men and women in the armed forces. Do not brand me Unpatriotic. But, we should have never been there in the first place. Afganastan, yes! Iraq, no!

Domestic issues are just as bad. I will not go into it. See next paragraph and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

There are literally hundreds of ways to educate yourself on the issues. Do not just take one stance and blindly ignore everything... ...

My favorite excerpt from all the debates (other than comic relief from Bush) is something Kerry said:

"Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.' And DeGaulle waved them off and said, 'No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.'

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world."