Ok. Right off the bat i'd like to let you know that yes, I am from a country that is represented by a LIBERAL government.

And yes I did vote for the Liberal party in the last election. BUT. I, as well as a lot of canadians don't seem to be as partisan as you folks down there in the States. I have a lot of beliefs that would be considered liberal, and a lot of beliefs that would be considered conservative. And I think OUR way of thinking up here is way beyond your thinking south of the border.

Don't get me wrong, in no way am I looking down upon you. But like I asked a friend of mine who is American "How in the heck do you ever get things done down there?" It just seems that lately so many of you will disagreee on anything that anyone else has to say. A Republican will say that the sky is blue, and a Democrat will say that the sky is "ocean" blue. It's the same thing, only slightly different.

During our election campaign not once did you here about "What Paul Martin's wife had to say", or "What was Steven Harpers military record like". We decided who our leader would be by what their plans for our country were.

We didn't nit pick about how many flags were present at each convention. I mean really, do you want to decide the leader of your country because he/she had ten more flags at their respective convention?

What's next, are you going to have an argument about how Bush should be president because he wears a size 11 shoe, and Kerry only wears a 10? Or vice versa?

I guess what i'd like to know is this:

If you're for Bush,why should he be president?

And If you're for Kerry, why should HE be president?

Mind you, I don't want to hear a long winded debate about how the "other" party is wrong. Just let me know why you think the party you are voting for should deserve to win.

Remember, i'm just asking for you to tell me why you think your candidate should win. I don't want to know why you think the other candidate should NOT win.

Thanks~Matt!

You are right resin-chaser about the level of discourse in politics. There was a campaign manager that some of us remember by the name of Lee Atwater, he mastered the art of negative campaigning and brought it to very ugly lows, and was idolized by many for it(it is a wonder to me who people choose as heroes).  Then he came down with a brain tumor and was given a year to live.  While he was dying he wrote an apology for the way in which he had handled the campaigns he ran.  I for one hope at that time people would ease up.  But he had done his job too well and now negative campaigning is what is largely employed. It makes it difficult for all who want to have rational discussions on the issues.

You are right resin-chaser about the level of discourse in politics. There was a campaign manager that some of us remember by the name of Lee Atwater.


I actually place it much earlier in history.

I would actually place it in 1964, with Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy Girl" ad against Barry Goldwater.

It showed a little girl plucking petals from a daisy.  In the background, a countdown was heard.  At the end, the girl was replaced with the image of a nuclear mushroom cloud.  I think that is what started the modern era of "dirty politics".

Move On tried to resurect this ad a year or so ago, with Bush being the target.  It got about the same response as the original version: disgust even from people who oppose Bush.

To answer the original question, I am for Kerry because I believe he much more diplomatic, In politics it is not always black and white, you have to see shades of gray to come to a consensus.  He is able to see different sides of issues and come to a conclusion taking in different view points.  I believe that he knows that his path in life was smoother because of the circumstances of his birth, and that people who were not born into those circumstances have to work for what they have.  I know some people who knew him as a young man(I did not) and though they didn't always agree with him, never faulted his integrity, and spoke of him as someone who would listen to others opinions respectfully.  Some regard him as stiff, formal, prone to talk  on about the fine points,  I feel this speaks well of someone who is going to deal with complex problems and with other cultures.  He has had a long career in national politics, I don't see that as a bad thing, he knows the players he will be dealing with on a daily basis, it helps.  He is a religious man who doesn't use his God to justify his actions.  He is far from perfect, and I have a lot of problems with some of the positions he has, or hasn't taken, but I, like him, can agree to differ, and still respect  him for it.

Resinchaser,

One reason why campaigns are less savage in Canada, other than my opion that Canadians are less savage people, is your parliamentary system.  In America, it's winner take all, so people feel the stakes are much higher.

You raise a very good issue, Resinchaser. Politics in the U.S. is VERY ugly. It is not a matter that my candidate is the one for the job because...it is a matter of the other candidate is wrong. You look at the ads. They usually say what the other candidate has or hasn't done instead of what that candidate WILL do or has done. It is negitive. And yes, I don't like those ads.

To answer your question WHY I am going to vote for my candidate-Well, first of all I do want to say that I am going to vote for Kerry. I have said in the past because he is NOT Bush. (I know you don't want that kind of answer but hear me out). My attitude toward Kerry changed when I heard his speech on Thursday. The fact that he said that he will NOT use negitive ads is a plus in my book. I also like the fact that he said that health care is a RIGHT not just for the rich. He also said that he would not privatize social security or cut benefits. He said that he will close the loopholes that ships jobs overseas, invest in "cars of the future" and diminish our reliance on foreign oil. These are just some of the things he said that made me realize that my vote for him is NOT just "because he is not Bush" but because he says he will do the things that I think should be done. But, I am a skeptic. I have heard campaign promises before. Seeing is believing.




Cat

Ah, my fellow RC, welcome to the wonderful world of mudslinging :)  Especially pronounced in our two--...nay, one-party system.

Since both parties, at the end of the day, do essentially the SAME things, each candidate has to cater to certain views to increase the odds that he is elected...that includes flip-flopping on issues, waffling on campaign promises down the line, etc. etc.  It's really messy.  IDEALLY we shouldn't be stupid enough to put up with this crap, but you know sheeple...

Anyway, to answer your question about why I want to vote for whoever, the answer is that I really don't know who deserves a vote this year.  I could vote for the Libertarian candidate but because of the one-party system these third parties don't get much voice in the media, because the media likes to cover the big boys.  I often wonder how it was that an experienced senator like John McCain lost out to W, especially with his jovial nature and military record, and if McCain were President I am thinking we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.  W is a bumbling fool whom I voted for because HE WASN'T GORE.  Negative voting bad, but I figured, "CA is going to Gore anyway, what the hell." 

This year, we're voting for BAD and WORSE.  There are many arguments as to who is BAD and who is WORSE.  I can't in good conscience vote for Kerry because he does not engender a feeling of trust and the only reason to vote for him is "Kerry is not Bush" :P (which is hypocritical in that I voted for Bush because he wasn't Gore, but at least I can admit it, hehehe.  I would've voted for McCain in a heartbeat)  I would vote for Nader to tick everyone off except that he has no official party and even if he does get the 5% popular vote that might mean he won't be guaranteed funding for his party (whatever it is) next election year.  I'm wavering on Bush because even though the economy IS improving (you can't dispute the numbers) and I do feel safer knowing the fight is over there (not that I like the idea that our troops are in danger), he just doesn't seem like the best leader.  On that vein, Kerry is not exactly a leader either and the only reason he won the candidacy is because Howard Dean went thermonuclear (YAAAAGH!). 

Ideally I would have voted for someone who would keep my taxes low, who would reduce government spending, who would keep our nation safe.  I don't think any of the major candidates this year will satisfy all these criteria.  I might abstain, I might vote for Bush or Nader.  Stay tuned, maybe they'll find Osama.

By the way, I am a registered Republican.

As a Democrat has more respect for McCain, I have often wondered why the Republicans went for Bush instead of McCain in the primaries.  Or maybe you should have recounted those dimpled chads. It is obvious that Kerry has shown much more of a regard for McCain than bush ever did, or would.

Someone once said that politics is the atr of compromise.  I never expect to get my ideal candidate - except ME  ;), and on other threads I have explained why I will vote for Kerry even though he is not me ideal candidate.

Lee Atwater did originate at least modern negative politics, which, unfortunately, work.


I actually place it much earlier in history.

I would actually place it in 1964, with Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy Girl" ad against Barry Goldwater.

It showed a little girl plucking petals from a daisy.  In the background, a countdown was heard.  At the end, the girl was replaced with the image of a nuclear mushroom cloud.  I think that is what started the modern era of "dirty politics".



But this, of course, was after Goldwater (who I supported although to young to vote- intelligence allows for a change) advocated nuking the commies.  Looking back, Barry was a scarry dude.

Understanding the US political system is difficult - evan for many of us, but it has degenerated from reasonable debate to name calling and emotionalism.  Use to be that the differences between the two parties were rather minimal, but especially the republicans have taken a sharp turn to the right.  Polarization is often the result of multi-party systems.  Its kind of wierd that it is happening here.

I would vote for Nader to tick everyone off except that he has no official party and even if he does get the 5% popular vote that might mean he won't be guaranteed funding for his party (whatever it is) next election year. 

In Alaska when you sign a petition to get someone on the state ballot you must put what party they are representing and since Nader isn't with any party this time around (he is an independent candidate meaning he has no political party ties) he is forming his very own Populist Party just like Perot did when he created the reform party (which is endorsing Nader.)  So if he does meet his goal this election (which is to be allowed in the presidential debates, get 5% of the vote, be on 41 different state ballots, and to get his consumer advocate message out) that federal funding will go to the yet to be newly formed Populist Party.

-Don't get me wrong Rice Cube, i'm not trying to make you vote for Nader.

In Alaska when you sign a petition to get someone on the state ballot you must put what party they are representing and since Nader isn't with any party this time around (he is an independent candidate meaning he has no political party ties) he is forming his very own Populist Party just like Perot did when he created the reform party (which is endorsing Nader.)  So if he does meet his goal this election (which is to be allowed in the presidential debates, get 5% of the vote, be on 41 different state ballots, and to get his consumer advocate message out) that federal funding will go to the yet to be newly formed Populist Party.

-Don't get me wrong Rice Cube, i'm not trying to make you vote for Nader.


Eh, there's no way in hell California's not going to Kerry anyway, so I'm gonna see what my mood is when I go vote ;)

Anybody with household debt, personal debt, student loans, and assets under a million dollars is daft if he votes for Bush.
Bush has tax cuts for the richest, pork for defense contractors, deregulation for corporations, and for you...empty rhetoric about values and terrorism.