If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Tampa Tribune joins the rest of the country in throwing up its hands and refusing to endorse a presidential candidate   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 185
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

12724 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2004 at 1:12 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2004-10-17 07:50:25 PM
OMG REPUBLICRATS AND DEMOCANS R TEH SAME HURRRRR
 
2004-10-17 07:51:46 PM
thank you tampa tribune. dont get involved in that crap. presidents are overrated anyways
 
2004-10-17 07:54:26 PM
The newspaper has solidly supported every Republican presidential nominee since 1952

I think that says enough, right there. There's no way they would have ever endorsed Kerry.
 
2004-10-17 07:55:00 PM
The morons don't even know there are other political parties in the USA. Journalists. Sheesh. They have a college degree? Whoda thunk it.

Farkers, write these dimwits and point out the Libertarians, Greens, Independants, whatever. I'm so sick of the two-party groupthink mesmerism I can't even eat. It's time for a real change, dump the Demopublicans. C'mon, Kerry and Bush were both in Skull and Bones. Both! Wake the bleep up people!
 
2004-10-17 10:01:11 PM
Too many people are worried about being behind the winner that they fail to see that they are the only ones losing.

If you really want change... vote for something different.
 
2004-10-17 10:16:00 PM
Here's a link to the actual "endorsement":

http://www.tampatrib .com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html
 
2004-10-17 10:27:17 PM
 
2004-10-18 12:10:26 AM
"The morons don't even know there are other political parties in the USA. Journalists. Sheesh. They have a college degree? Whoda thunk it.

Farkers, write these dimwits and point out the Libertarians, Greens, Independants, whatever. I'm so sick of the two-party groupthink mesmerism I can't even eat. It's time for a real change, dump the Demopublicans. C'mon, Kerry and Bush were both in Skull and Bones. Both! Wake the bleep up people!"


Amen, brother. Vote Badnarik
 
2004-10-18 12:24:45 AM
Why do I get the feeling that they would have endorsed Kerry, but company policy forbids it?
 
2004-10-18 01:18:02 AM
Third parties are, have been, and will continue to be the redheaded stepchildren of American politics.

Someone who's interested only in whining about the unfair nature of "the system" on the shoulders of fellow holier-than-thou, too-pure-to-get-their-hands-dirty will naturally gravitate to a third party.

Someone who's interested in making a difference by effecting real change in their local community and working together with other communities through the values of compromise and mutual assistance will naturally gravitate toward the Rs or Ds -- and take them over from within.

Hey, it worked for the "Christian" nutcases currently occupying the White House.
 
2004-10-18 01:19:33 AM
Does anyone really care about the Tampa Tribune?

//good night.
 
2004-10-18 01:19:51 AM
Just Ignorant: Because you're just ignorant?
 
2004-10-18 01:21:51 AM
Thank you Tampa Tribune. Thank you very much.
 
2004-10-18 01:23:14 AM
Sergeant Tux

Classy.
 
2004-10-18 01:24:51 AM
... with a capital "C".
 
2004-10-18 01:25:04 AM
Does anyone really give a crap what a "newspaper" endorses? It's almost as ridiculous as the office of sheriff having party affiliation. What a bunch of horseshiat.
 
2004-10-18 01:26:16 AM
When exactly did newspapers start endorsing presidential candidates anyway?

To all the newspaper editors, I have an idea. How about you give us the facts, throw in a few editorials on both sides of pertinent issues, and then let US, the READERS, decide who to vote for, capisce?
 
2004-10-18 01:27:13 AM
Both Kerry and Bush have to win Tampa to win the state.

/Don't forget the boobies. Tampa has the best strip clubs in the state.
 
2004-10-18 01:28:22 AM
I'm also with crazycurt

The problem is that we don't like to spend time on anything, we just wanna do it fast and easy. sure, we could have more candidates, but then we'd have to spend more time deciding and researching. the same reason wal-mart, mcdonalds, and microsoft are so succesful.

it's not true for all of us, but is for most
 
2004-10-18 01:28:56 AM
 
2004-10-18 01:30:54 AM
I'm sorry but there's absolutely nothing heroic about this. All it shows to me is a paper that is either too weak willed or dimwitted to form an opinion. I'd have more respect for them if they would have come out and endorsed Lyndon LaRouche.

Those dumb mother f*ckers in Tampa ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But then again, it's the Tampa Tribune, what do you expect?

"Sooner or later, one has to choose a side." -- Graham Greene, "The Quiet American"
 
2004-10-18 01:31:27 AM
People still read newspapers?!?!
 
2004-10-18 01:31:48 AM
Newspapers have always endorsed politicians and especially ballot initiatives. And since when did people care about facts, let alone read in this current election cycle?
 
2004-10-18 01:32:43 AM
These are Republicans- REAL Republicans, not Neo-Conservatives like Bush. If there were a real Republican in the race, they'd endorse someone, but they disagree with Bush as much as they disagree with Kerry. And they're not libertarian, green, or "constitutionalist" (those guys make me sick) either, so they're not going to endorse a third party.

I just think it speaks volumes that so many Republicans are turning away from Bush. I know several. They don't have to vote for Kerry, they can just stay home on election day.
 
2004-10-18 01:34:15 AM
Tampa Tribune is right -- Bush doesn't merit re-election and Kerry doesn't merit being elected, period. Sadly, the Tampe Tribune falls into the same antiquated two-party mindset -- there are several good third-party candidates out there.

/Voting BADNARIK
 
2004-10-18 01:34:18 AM
It's all about the social democrats.

/thinks having some socialism not all that bad
//means more than there is now
///grabs another beer and loks for porn
////enough goodbye
 
2004-10-18 01:34:27 AM
I hear everyone on the Tampa Tribune's staff is voting for Nader.
 
2004-10-18 01:35:35 AM
Tampa Trib used to be the conservative paper of the Tampa Bay area, the St. Pete Times their liberal counterpart.

Since 2000, though, the Trib has moved more and more to the left. Draw your on conclusions as to why this might be.
 
2004-10-18 01:35:42 AM
Meanwhile, the paper in St. Pete endorsed Kerry.
 
2004-10-18 01:36:12 AM
This is just an early indicator that once again Florida will be unable to choose a president on its own.
 
2004-10-18 01:36:27 AM
Why is it even a question in anyones mind?

Has Bush not farked things up enough for you?

What the hell?!??!
 
2004-10-18 01:39:42 AM
being up here in liberal Chicago is strange for a Florida boy.
Up here they will vote against Bush and pretend to care about the disenfranchised.

It was strange that the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush. Now that they are installing the cameras, I guess it makes sense.
 
2004-10-18 01:41:59 AM
OMG! In like 2000, I became passionate about the Green Party and then after elections I forgot about it. Now there are 2 viable and very different canidates... A liberal and a conservative. I'm going to whine and biatch about how neither of them are perfect. I'm then going to tell everyone I'm a libertarian because I went to that Badnarik site and went "Yep... that sounds cool" "Yep... that sounds cool" "Yep... that sounds cool" on the issues page.

In 2008, I'm going to biatch moan that there isn't a 4th party canidate and claim Libertarism is sooooo mainstream and corrupt now. I will then proceed to vote for the most obscure president.
 
2004-10-18 01:43:38 AM
VOTE JON STEWART IN 2004!
 
2004-10-18 01:43:50 AM
Ok, they both suck, but everyone should vote damnit. If neither wins an electoral majority this thing will go to the House and Senate, and who knows how those will be after the election. I'll take Bush over Kerry anyday, but I'd rather see Kerry or Bush win big this election than go through 2000 again.
 
2004-10-18 01:43:51 AM
No Confidance. Unfortunately, politics keep that off of the ballot when that should be an option in every state.
 
2004-10-18 01:43:59 AM
Can someone explain to me why so many Republicans want to make complicated issues like Iraq so black and white? Especially when they say "We're not sure what Kerry thinks. He supported the war in Iraq, then opposed adequately funding the troops. His plan to secure the peace in Iraq is to cozy up to European countries that don't have our interests at heart," the editorial said." Those are nothing but RNC talking points and those were repeated in the local paper here both in their endorsement of Bush but also in every letter to the editor that hates Kerry. If I didn't know any better going on the letters and other writings I would think the RNC and its supporters only know how to say a few things and don't mind making things so ridiculously easy that it knocks out any real understanding of issues. Just repeat repeat repeat and some how people eat it up.

/confused and looking for conservative and liberals with ideas and not talking points to take a lead in politics.
 
2004-10-18 01:44:05 AM
A lot of people down here (Florida) are also pissed because of the Hurricane issue not being discussed. Its increasingly obvious that unless you are down here, you have no idea what is going on or how bad it really is. FEMA just marked $24 billion in aid - that amount approaches 20% of what was allocated for Iraq (which was $130 billion) yet its a non issue. The rising gas prices are due in part to facilities in the gulf taking damage from the storms, as well as processing facilities in the gulf states and the East coast of Florida. There really are tens of thousands of people homeless here. There are tens of thousands of people down here without work, directly related to the storms, and our infrastructure in some areas has been devastated.

The state is passing out emergency disaster food coupons to just about anyone, as just about anyone qualifies (its based on family size more than income). Canada has sent power crews, many of them (and them being a country of 25 million people - same population as the state - the number of people they sent is most sincerely appreciated as it puts a strain on their resources) so this is an international reconstruction effort. But its like above Georgia, no one knows whats going on down here. I talk to people around here in Orange, out in Polk and Lake (Lake and Polk are still partially under water from flooding BTW and those are inland counties) and no one knows.

Its farking annoying. I mean it is goddamn annoying that the farking media has an opportunity to get us help, spread awareness of the rebuilding effort in Florida, and they farking ignore it.

So hey, its about up to, fark Iraq, fark the World Trade Center, fark Kerry and fark Bush. Because if no one gives enough of a shiat to send help, or at the very farking least make public the devastation down here, then fark the whole load.

And in that respect, I hope we fark the election up on purpose down here and send our electoral votes for Mickey goddamn mouse for all the good it will do us in the end.
 
2004-10-18 01:44:11 AM
Why settle for George W. Kerry ...



... when you can have a genuine small-government candidate like Michael Badnarik?
 
2004-10-18 01:44:31 AM
I'm voting for bush. I expect more funny soundbites.
 
2004-10-18 01:48:05 AM
Talonpest

I just think it speaks volumes that so many Republicans are turning away from Bush. I know several. They don't have to vote for Kerry, they can just stay home on election day.

You just described my Republican girlfriend. She won't vote for Kerry, but can't bring herself to vote for Bush again either. I've tried to persuade her to vote for a 3rd party as a way of solving this dilemma, but she doesn't want to vote for a 3rd party she doesn't agree with simply as a protest vote. She wants to vote for a Republican, but Bush simply isn't a real Republican, so she's sitting this one out.
 
2004-10-18 01:49:10 AM
I once found a presidential candidate in the dumpster behind Cracker Barrel.

No kidding. True story.
 
2004-10-18 02:00:49 AM
Yah they both suck. Bad representatives for each. Guess you vote for the lesser of two evils, and it will be a close one again this year, with prob. tons of protesting afterward for whoever wins.

I hate the two party system. I'd like a 3rd party to be able to run and debate and all. Unfortunately, there's too many wacko ideas these 3rd party candidates have that in my mind don't make them credible enough to president.

Thank goodness that in 2 more weeks all this shiat will be over with. It gives me a headache...
 
2004-10-18 02:00:55 AM
Badnarik... sigh... all well and good until you get to the part about legalizing crack and ak-47s. politics on paper, meet the real world. ernt. next.
 
2004-10-18 02:01:15 AM
Anybody else find it incredibly creepy that news outlets actually admit to being partisan? I mean hell, everyone else knows it, but I thought they were just ignorant of their own bias. Turns out they're proud of it... Maybe this is just because I'm Canadian. Sorry everyone...
 
2004-10-18 02:03:54 AM
"We're not sure what Kerry thinks. He supported the war in Iraq, then opposed adequately funding the troops."

What's truely frightning is that a *newspaper*, who has access to *facts*, makes no attempt to spend five minutes and find out that this statement simply isn't true.....

Unless you go by the republican school of thought which is, if you say it enough times, it *must* be true......and not even a newspaper will fact check you....

Since when did ideology become so divorced from reality......or has it always been this way?
 
2004-10-18 02:05:41 AM
It's not the "rest of the country" who are throwing up their hands and refusing to endorse a candidate. It's conservatives who are too proud to admit they made a mistake (Tampa Tribune has endorsed every Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.) Everyone else is voting for Kerry.
 
2004-10-18 02:06:16 AM
Pussies.
 
B82
2004-10-18 02:08:10 AM
I thought there would be a lot more obnoxious lefties in here bragging about this. I guess they are all asleep.

/hopes the Republican panhandle has a strong turnout
 
2004-10-18 02:08:15 AM
"President Bush told us that he was 'a uniter, not a divider,' but shortly after taking office, his administration took a sharp right turn that has divided this country," the editorial said. The newspaper said it was "deeply disappointed" with Bush on federal spending, the budget deficit and the recession.

I fail to see how spending crazy-money and sailing through the first term without vetoing a single spending bill is a "sharp right turn".

I'm absolutely terrified that if Bush isn't re-elected, in future years people will look back and say it was because he was "too conservative" -- translating that, in turn, to some whacked-out idea that he didn't spend enough money. Call me looney tunes, it could happen. It's very likely to happen. Say hello to three trillion dollar federal budgets.

"This is a presidency in deep trouble, made worse by the refusal to acknowledge the trouble," the Journal wrote.

There's this guy at work who made an interesting point about this prevailing sentiment. He said it was womanly. He did not mean it in a kind way.

What's this business about acknowledging trouble? You buy a cheaper brand of charcoal for the barbeque, it doesn't work, you drive back and get some Kingsford and the problem is solved but you don't acknoweldge that you screwed up the first time -- what really is the problem there?

Compared with, you put on way too much fluid and end up burning down the house. And then you say "Aw gee that was wrong of me I'm sorry." That's somehow a better situation?

Womanly. The co-worker's words, not mine. Gonna have to 'fess up, though, he's got a point. Acknowledging mistakes is a fad; a seventies/hippy new-age thing; terribly overrated. Seriously, get a clue.

Mike, if you're reading this, thanks for the inspiration. Stop FARKing and get back to resetting those passwords. :)
 
2004-10-18 02:08:47 AM
What's truely frightning is that a *newspaper*, who has access to *facts*, makes no attempt to spend five minutes and find out that this statement simply isn't true.....

Hey, it's not the media's job to check the facts or point out when someone is lying. The media's job is to repot what one side says and then report what the other side says. That's how they achieve fair and balanced reporting.

/sarcasm, but it's sadly true.
 
2004-10-18 02:08:58 AM
Sir Chevron Food Mart - White makes right, eh?
 
2004-10-18 02:10:21 AM
either the submitter is an idiot or a republican.
the gist of the aricle is: we at the tampa tribune cant believe we endorsed bush in 2000 and we cannot endorse chimpy again for a shiat load of reasons.
/RTFA
 
2004-10-18 02:12:47 AM
My God I've been saying this all along. Bush is incompetent and frankly scares me. He's not the best the Republicans have. But on the other hand, Kerry isn't that much better either. He's not the best the Democrats have.

I think what's going on is the Democrats didn't want to waste a "really good" canidate on this election, thinking they should conserve him ( or her, if you beleive the rumors that its Hilary Clinton) for next election. Thing is, they put Kerry in there and underestimated the situation. Both parties are so messed up.

I'll vote for Kerry, mainly because my people are dying for a pointless war ( including several ex-classmates) and I'm worried about the enviorment. But my God...I'm 19, and this will be my first election. This is what I have to look foward to??

They wonder why a lotta young people don't vote. This is exactly it. Besides my generation being TOTALLY ignored ( except when it comes to fighting wars), we're confused by this nonsense. And when we're not being ignored, we're being insulted ( the democrats had a similar stupid sounding campaign, but I can remember the Republicans move to get young people to vote: "Holla up yo"). It's like they beleive we don't understand politics! Or that we don't care. If one of these guys realized this, and talked to us, they'd have this election in the bag. Like him or not ( I didnt love him nor hate him), Clinton did this. And it helped him win.
 
2004-10-18 02:14:04 AM
Headline should read:

"Conservative Newspaper who supported any Republican candidate since almost 100 years refuse to support George Poland Bush.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
I'm glad for this; I hope it serves to illustrate just how much the caliber of presidential candidate has declined.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Supporting republicans since 1964, it's quite revealing about Bush's credibility that they do not support him as tradition goes.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Badnarik for president!

/vote Libertarian, biatches!
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Old Wasted Vote Hotness: Nader
New Wasted Vote Hotness: Badnarik

As uninformed young people, Let's show the Bush admin what were made of!
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
I hope a moderator takes notice and bans Sir Chevron Food Mart.
 
MN2
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Badnarik it is, we have at our hands the biggest source of communication, the farking internet never sleeps. Do everything you can to let everyone see the light at the end of their rectum. Change your messenger names, do anything and everything you can think of to convince someone out there to atleast do some research. Badnarik.org
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

/Got nuthin'
//Now have Rush song stuck in my head...
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
What!? I'm all for options, but jesus, a "real" third option is Badnarik? An isolationist international policy? Destruction of the economy by essentially eliminating the federal reserve? ARE YOU SERIOUS? My. Lord. The list goes on. Just because he's a third presidential option still doesn't mean he's anything except stupendously horrible.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Old Wasted Vote Hotness: Nader
New Wasted Vote Hotness: Badnarik

As uninformed young people, Let's show the Bush admin what were made of!
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Old Wasted Vote Hotness: Nader
New Wasted Vote Hotness: Badnarik

As uninformed young people, Let's show the Bush admin what were made of!
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
I'm glad for this; I hope it serves to illustrate just how much the caliber of presidential candidate has declined.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Supporting republicans since 1964, it's quite revealing about Bush's credibility that they do not support him as tradition goes.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
What!? I'm all for options, but jesus, a "real" third option is Badnarik? An isolationisy international policy? Destruction of the economy by essentially elimination the federal reserve? ARE YOU SERIOUS? My. Lord. The list goes on. Just because he's a third presidential option still doesn't mean he's anything except stupendously horrible.
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
2004-10-18 02:12:47 AM EvenStephen7

But my God...I'm 19, and this will be my first election. This is what I have to look foward to??


I don't think so. I don't think it's possible to be this bad again...

Then again... I'm an optimist.


...we're confused by this nonsense.

...It's like they beleive we don't understand politics!


*snicker*

For what it's worth, I'm 27 and this is the first time I'll be voting. Quite a bit of tihs is confusing to me too.

The thing is, I never voted before because it never seemed to matter. I never really agreed or disagreed with what candidates said much, so I never really felt compelled. I didn't care... then we ended up with Bush.

I care now...
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
2004-10-18 02:12:47 AM EvenStephen7

But my God...I'm 19, and this will be my first election. This is what I have to look foward to??


I don't think so. I don't think it's possible to be this bad again...

Then again... I'm an optimist.


...we're confused by this nonsense.

...It's like they beleive we don't understand politics!


*snicker*

For what it's worth, I'm 27 and this is the first time I'll be voting. Quite a bit of tihs is confusing to me too.

The thing is, I never voted before because it never seemed to matter. I never really agreed or disagreed with what candidates said much, so I never really felt compelled. I didn't care... then we ended up with Bush.

I care now...
 
2004-10-18 02:24:18 AM
Supporting republicans since 1964, it's quite revealing about Bush's credibility that they do not support him as tradition goes.
 
2004-10-18 02:26:00 AM
ok, since I'm tired of the bush/kerry flames..

badnarik sucks.

there.
 
2004-10-18 02:26:52 AM
Badnarik believes the NRA is too anti-gun.
 
2004-10-18 02:27:02 AM
At least The Weasel (Kerry) doesn't make you sign a loyalty oath to be in his presence. That is just too creepy for me to tolerate.

/anyone but Bush
 
2004-10-18 02:27:54 AM
bullseye2

good observation. especially considering there was just a headline posted saying NY times and 2 other papers (didn't rtfa tho) announcing their endorsement for kerry.

republican or idiot...kind of redundant with most republicans i know.
 
2004-10-18 02:27:58 AM
badnarik believes you should be able to buy crack and H at 7-11.
 
2004-10-18 02:28:56 AM
My computer froze and I posted the same thing 3 times.... sorry MODS...
 
2004-10-18 02:29:06 AM
CrazyCurt

The morons don't even know there are other political parties in the USA. Journalists. Sheesh. They have a college degree? Whoda thunk it.

Farkers, write these dimwits and point out the Libertarians, Greens, Independants, whatever. I'm so sick of the two-party groupthink mesmerism I can't even eat. It's time for a real change, dump the Demopublicans. C'mon, Kerry and Bush were both in Skull and Bones. Both! Wake the bleep up people!


If you really think that Bush and Kerry are the same, just wait for Bush's Supreme Court appoints which will socially back-peddle this country to 1950. He'll stack the bench with Scalias, making abortion illegal, being gay illegal (at least gay sex), and end to the separation of church and state. When Bush makes those appointments, all you libertarians, greens and independents will be kicking yourself for not voting for Kerry. It could take as much as 30 years to put in place a new court that would overturn Bush's regressive social policies.
 
2004-10-18 02:29:21 AM
echo......echo
 
2004-10-18 02:31:16 AM
Recently, heck, no, usually I come across the voter that says, "I want to vote for the winner."

Um.

Hmmm.

Lessee now, let's make a choice based on who will win and vote for that candidate. Makes sense. If you're an idiot.

I'm always told I'm throwing my vote away for voting Libertarian. No, I am not. It is counted, usually. And until they moved my voting place to a religious fanatic church I was able to go vote, go to work, come home and see my vote counted. Only Libertarian in my little block. 1. That's freakin' cool. Everyone else? Demopublicrats. Well a few greens. Grrrrrrr.
 
TWX
2004-10-18 02:32:57 AM
The steps to Executive branch reform:

Don't re-elect a lackluster administration. If this requires voting in an administration that isn't particularly well known, encourage legislative branch policies to keep things in check.

Observe the new President to see how campaign promises line up with reality. Observe how non-campaign-related issues are handled, and how the President and staff handle new issues.

Compare how this President did come election time. If this President met or exceeded expectations or goals, re-elect. If this President did not meet or exceed goals, go to step 1.

In this case, Bush, in my opinion, has not done a good job. As President Truman said, "The buck stops here.", and Bush has a lot to answer for in both foreign and domestic issues. Economic policies endorsed by him haven't really helped the recession. Our traditional allies are not happy with us. The Buzzword Bingo programs that his administration conceived and implemented haven't proven the wild success that we were led to believe. He has endorsed amending our Constitution to restrict the freedom of the People by the hands of the Government. He needs to go. Currently Kerry, as little as we know about him, is the most successful front runner. If we elect Kerry and don't like his policies we can always drop him in four years in favor of the next challenger. After 20 years of this maybe someone will realise that in order to keep the job, they actually have to DO the job.
 
2004-10-18 02:35:17 AM
 
2004-10-18 02:36:00 AM
Good Lord. Oil has hit $55.33 a barrel.

Back on topic, the scariest thing this country could face would be a supreme court stacked by Bush. Our civil rights wouldn't just go back to 1950 -- they'd go back to 1850. Bush has an absolutely dismall record for civil rights.

Come to think of it, he also has a dismall record on health care, the environment, education, the economy, the war on terror, and eating pretzels.
 
2004-10-18 02:36:52 AM
For a right-wing media outlet to not endorse the Party Candidate is huge. Bush has failed so dramatically that even many who used to constitute his base are questioning his validity as a candidate.

Vote Kerry, vote Libertarian, vote Green, vote Nader, vote your farking conscience... But I just can't understand why anybody's conscience would make them want to elect a right wing nut like Bush.

I guess if you want war, big government, fiscal irresponsibility, poverty, a degraded environment, and a re-election of the 21st century's Herbert Hoover, then Bush is your guy... But if you want all those things, you are probably dumb enough to be a Florida voter.

Can we just disenfranchise the whole state?
 
2004-10-18 02:39:03 AM
BTW ...

I turned 18 in 1984. I voted straight Republican and was proud of it.

Then Reagan spouted christian dogma. You lost me there bud. Man he was cool in California too. WTF?

I bailed from the Repubs faster than Speedy Gonzalez. 1988 all Libertarian. I read the literature. If they mean what they say I'm all for it. Less government, personal freedom, ceeripes, what's wrong with that!?
 
2004-10-18 02:40:39 AM
Whose for mixing the DNA of Ghengis Kahn and Teddy Roosevelt and just growing our new President?
 
2004-10-18 02:41:37 AM
well bush has come out against the dred scott decision. he's so 1865.
 
2004-10-18 02:43:41 AM
i live in florida. don't disenfranchise me!
 
2004-10-18 02:44:02 AM
It's strange. My supervisor (a little, old lady) was driven to curse in describing the current administration. This was after she said she decided to give him a chance (she decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt). Now, this little, old lady honestly could not understand why anyone would be "so much of an idiot as to vote for Bush" (her descriptor of how well he did his job was somewhat more colorful). I don't know where I'm going with this, but it really struck me as emblematic of this election.
 
2004-10-18 02:46:16 AM
lovehate

make that Kublai Khan and F.D.R. and you got yourself my vote.
 
2004-10-18 02:46:42 AM
YES!!! Thank you!!!
 
2004-10-18 02:47:04 AM
faethe

Are you authorized to say such things? There is a media blackout about Florida. They will be knocking soon.

--- beware "Them" ---

--- just kidding, John ---
 
2004-10-18 02:50:33 AM
2004-10-18 01:19:51 AM Sergeant Tux


Just Ignorant: Because you're just ignorant?




in the "You live up to your username" sweepstakes!

Keep playing, kids. #100 wins a month's supply of Citrical!

You've heard it time and again, from Paul Harvey, Chris Evert, Dr. Miriam Nelson, and maybe your own family and friends: Citracal, regular exercise and a healthy diet are vital to good bone health and to prevent osteoporosis.

Who, oh who, will win? Check back in late December!
 
2004-10-18 02:51:55 AM
Oh, and faethe, let me say, if that nastiness happened to California during the Bush administration, it would not only be ignored, it would be applauded.

"Hahaha Jesus done keeld dem hippies, good rid-dance, commies hahahaha!"
 
2004-10-18 02:54:40 AM
2004-10-18 01:43:59 AM FUBuddy

Well, there is campaign talk, there are public speeches, and then there are the real discussions.

In campaign talk, you confuse the issues you are weak on. In public speeches, you simplify the issues you want action on. In the real discussions, you are open and honest to a limited and carefully controlled audience.

Continuing your Iraqi example:

RNC's campaign talk: Iraq is a problem, but you guys supported it too, but not well enough, which is why we are in trouble, you traitors.

DNC's campaign talk: We sorta supported the Iraq war, but that's before we didn't, and we only supported it because we thought you weren't really going to do anything.

RNC's public speeches: We have to invade Iraq because it is an agressive country with an insane dictator who supports terrorism and wants to use WMDs to control the middle east.

DNC's public speeches: Iraq was contained, and would have resolved itself peacefully without any children getting bombed had we just kept the sanctions in place.

RNC's real discussions: The world direly needs the mid east oil trade, but Islamic fundamentalists violently reject any and all international contact, and the current dictatorships seem too weak to oppose them. The entire region needs change, by force if necessary. Iraq is a good place to start, because we have been bombing it for 10 years now with no end in sight. Plus, sanctions are breaking down, with France and Russia regularly flaunting them in the hopes of gaining favorable oil contracts. And what if the sanctions hold? Will the country degenerate into another N. Korea, broke but armed to the teeth? We have to either cut our losses, or make Iraq an example, and we aren't good at running.

DNC's real discussions: OK, granted on the issues with Islamic fundamentalism, but for the next couple decades we are just going to have to live with it. The best way to combat terrorism is by growing the rule of law in the middle east. The countries there are too weak for this strategy to be effective short term, but long term this should be a safer approach. Going in guns blazing is too risky, as we might destroy more than we create. Iraq is a problem, and yes the sanctions are in trouble, but we might yet be able to repair them, and hopefully when Iraq's leadership dies of old age it can rejoin the rest of the middle east.

There are real, solid, and important differences between the Democratic views and the Republican views, but often you never hear them. They certainly don't get discussed with, say, the public. That would be silly :)
 
2004-10-18 02:58:16 AM
thornhill --- too drunk to debate ya.

Look dude, here's the deal. In my opinion you vote for the man you're a tool. Lurch and Chimp are marionettascope. They are the evil ones. Rich, white, sheltered, private school, secret society ... ceeripes, what else is wrong with this picture! Am I the only one who wants to vote the way I want to vote? Freedom, liberty, a sound economy, fewer taxes, end the IRS ... must I go on? Is that insane? I guess so.
 
2004-10-18 03:03:45 AM
The college newspaper of which I am on the editorial board has decided not to endorse a candidate, probably because we are so split it would be pointless to write the majority opinion.
 
2004-10-18 03:07:33 AM
The politics in this country make me SICK.

That's all.
 
2004-10-18 03:10:31 AM
2004-10-18 02:32:57 AM TWX

I wish it was that simple. But people don't elect Presidents primarily on their policies. People elect Presidents based on the strength of their party. For example, George Bush stands a decent chance in this election because, although people hate his policies, the Republican Party is currently in far better shape than the Democratic Party.

I don't think people will change the way they vote. I believe the best hope for improvement is to switch to one of the founding fathers' alternative ideas for the Presidency: let the Senate choose.

That way, people can vote for their party, without being forced to keep or change any particular incumbant in the White House. A party could win every election, and change their leader each time until they get one that works. They wouldn't be forced to stick with a dud just because he is the incumbant.
 
2004-10-18 03:11:30 AM
2004-10-18 03:07:33 AM ban me

What would you prefer? Just curious.
 
2004-10-18 03:13:47 AM
You know while I'm into it, I honestly think there is a Conspiracy ( see www.subgenius.com, if you can't copy and paste then you're not worthy ) and I do think it's very, very wealthy people managing and manipulating the humans of this planet. Tin-foil sounding. So what. I've been through HELL in my life, sheer torment, and nothing seemed to make sense. Am about to go through the meat-grinder again too.

What have I learned?

The wealthy get wealthier while I get poorer.

So why Libertarian? Perhaps they will get rid of the darned government administrator who only works 3 of 5 days ( talkin' to you TopKnot and you know who I am ) because she's an executive administrator and deserves down time.

Anyone ever wonder why you have to wait a bazillion hours in line to get a driver's license, or a green card, or whatever the fark else? They don't get fired. Why? Union power. Why does the union have that much power? Moolla!

Meanwhile the religious maniacs, wanting to meet Jesus in this lifetime, are fervently trying to bring about the Apocalypse. How do I know? I was one of them once. Yup. Me. CrazyCurt. I wouldn't mind the Apocalypse actually, you humans frighten and discourage me, but then the universe wouldn't have Hendrix, which would be a shame.

Raised a hippy, turned into a christian, read a Libertarian book, then, the most important thing I've read in my life, I read the Book of the SubGenius. I ain't been right since boys and girls.

Maybe I'll just write in "Bob", but I don't know if he's dead or alive again.
 
2004-10-18 03:18:13 AM
Sir Chevron Food Mart - White makes right, eh?

Let's just say, White is aight, and the White race has nothing to apologize for to anyone, except maybe itself.

Conversely, there's no bigger rube on earth than the guilty White liberal.


sucker mc

banned? me? Wouldn't be the first time. Mods, I believe it's my turn to buy the drinks.

What I write wouldn't scare people so much if it didn't ring true. I would invite you all to visit Killafornia, where I am, except there's no need: the ignorant, illegal neo-Mexican future hell on Amerika's soil your kids will inherit is well on its way to fruition everywhere.

Fifty years or less.
 
2004-10-18 03:19:57 AM
CrazyCurt

Oh, and faethe, let me say, if that nastiness happened to California during the Bush administration, it would not only be ignored, it would be applauded.

"Hahaha Jesus done keeld dem hippies, good rid-dance, commies hahahaha!"


Ya know you are probably right. How in fark stuff like this gets turned into a political thing is beyond me. If you guys get slammed with a goodun - that really trashes up a good piece, it should be a "oh well what the hell, the war was fun but now another state went off line. Guess we have to pull people home and help our own people" deal.

Ya know - when you hear that the people in Iraq have the electricity back on in their schools and shiat, and you REALLY HAVE to start making comparisons as to when that will farking happen for you, there is a PROBLEM.
 
2004-10-18 03:22:51 AM
2004-10-18 03:13:47 AM CrazyCurt

Heck, man, that's no conspiracy. That's by design. That's on purpose.

Capitalism is all about allocating money to those that help advance Capitalism.

And the more money you have, the more power you have. Otherwise, what would the point of money be, really?

Fortunately, the point of Governments is to make sure that the whole thing doesn't get out of hand.

Unfortunately, corporations are far more competant than the Feds are.
 
2004-10-18 03:28:11 AM
But there is a limit .

How many rich people will buy a yacht? Quite a few. But not as many as people who will buy milk.

I guess it's volume versus value, quality over quantity, fashion over function.

Seems screwed in my eyes.

--- function/fashion ---
 
2004-10-18 03:28:51 AM
Sorry, bad HTML. My apologies Team Fark.
 
2004-10-18 03:33:25 AM
Sure, there are limits built into the system, such as sliding income taxes and welfare. They could work better though. And the wealth distribution could work better too... a football player is NOT worth a thousand times more than a top scientist.

But all in all, capitalism is doing pretty well. Too bad the same isn't true of the government.
 
2004-10-18 03:33:33 AM
I laugh at those who think we can change the two-party system. Go take Political Science 101, folks.

In a winner-take-all, plurality-based election like we have, three major parties will never coexist for an extended period of time. It makes no sense; the two that are closest ideologically will combine, if they have any intelligence whatsoever.

Let's say we have three major parties. One is generally conservative and gets approximately 40% of the vote. The two others are generally liberal and get 35% and 25% of the vote, respectively. See the problem already? The way that sets up, the conservatives would win every election, assuming party line voting. The liberals should then unite the two parties, and easily win every election from then on.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have more than two major parties. It can exist, but it's not stable (see Perot, 1992). Or we can switch to proportional representation, but somehow I can't see America switching to PR, with the inherent loss of individualism in politics that comes with it. We aren't too good at putting the group ahead of the individual in this country.
 
2004-10-18 03:38:38 AM
faethe -- bad to the bone. Hit 'em. I like that. Good luck to ya bud.

--- too whacked, outta here ---
 
2004-10-18 03:38:41 AM
Sir Chevron - Of course, the fact that the first illegal immigrants into California were, in fact, white Americans changes nothing, eh?

Plenty of Mexicans in California didn't move to America. The borders moved for them.
 
2004-10-18 03:41:02 AM
Wait, one more thing.

Fark PoliSci101! I threw a chair at the prof one day into classes. Yeah, I went nuts. Not unheard of event actually. But the jackass started out with crap like we are all liberals and I am going to prove it.

Hope I'm getting his tax money these days.
 
2004-10-18 05:18:07 AM
CrazyCurt:

I'm watching you!

;-)
 
2004-10-18 06:23:53 AM
The paper definately has the right idea, the two major candidates both suck ass.

I'm going to probably vote for Kerry, but it just pisses me off that we have such a shiatty candidate for such an important election.

At least if I do vote for Nader, it won't affect Kerry. Georgia is as Red State as it gets.
 
2004-10-18 06:32:03 AM
2004-10-18 06:23:53 AM Red Donkey
The paper definately has the right idea, the two major candidates both suck ass.

You've got that right.
I've disliked Kerry the whole campaign, but I finally made up my mind during the third debate.


http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1166508
2004-10-14 06:54:52 AM McGovern 72

Goodbye Kerry, Hello Nader.
...
2. And this is the big one that pissed me off. I didn't like Kerry or Edwards outing Cheney. Yeah, yeah, those of us who follow politics know she is a lesbian, but there are people somewhere who don't. I'm sure there are people I grew up with who don't know I'm gay and I wouldn't want it mentioned on television. It smacked of a cold political calculation, it was totally unnecessary, and it was wrong. If he will be wrong on something so obvious, what else will he be wrong on?

Nader 2004
Nation before Party



/Proud of myself for realizing immediantly that Kerry was wrong on what he said before the media even started talking about it.
 
2004-10-18 06:45:29 AM
I live in Tampa and think this is a good thing. If only they would have endorsed a 3rd party candidate. I'm voting Badnarik. He may have some crazy ideas, but they would never get through. I happen to agree that all drugs and guns should be legal. Instead we would repeal the 16th amendment. Which I know all the Republicans would want, and then our taxes would be gone.

And if we all vote enough 3rd party candidates, maybe no one will get the majority vote. Then we can have the courts decide who are next president is.
 
2004-10-18 06:45:47 AM
2004-10-18 06:32:03 AM McGovern 72

I agree with you about the lesbian remark. When I heard Kerry say that, I too knew it was wrong.

I figure it's like this: If your opponent's kid is divorced, many people will know it but it doesn't need to be mentioned on national television.

Now I'm getting pissed off again. Hell, maybe I will vote for Nader too.
 
2004-10-18 07:09:31 AM
McGovern72
Have fun getting those equality rights under another Bush term. Can you say "consititutional ammendment"? You're delusional if you think that Nader or any other 3rd party candidate has a realistic shot at the presidentcy. At least with Kerry you get some sort of civil union type deal. Which basically sounds like "marriage rights with a different name". You're choice.

I'm so glad someone like bcp01scu05 finally spoke out against voting for 3rd party candidate. I don't much care for either candidate either, but given the choice between GW and Kerry, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. I was considering voting for Badnarik, but then I thought...that would be almost equal with not voting at all so why bother?
/has taken polisci101
//thinks that most dumbshiats don't know the difference between a plurality and a majority.
 
2004-10-18 07:14:41 AM
Optimus
Since that worked out SOOOO well last time. /rolls eyes
FYI: The Congress chooses the next president in a draw. And since Congress is Republican controlled you can be sure that if you vote for a 3rd party candidate in a state that might actually matter(ie: swing state) you might as well cast your ballot for good ole GW.
/shakes head in disgust for American politics
 
2004-10-18 07:25:18 AM
McGovern72

"Outing" cheney? Mary Cheney was mentioned abundantly in the Cheney/Edwards debate, she has been openly gay for a long time, her job is promoting Coors among the gay community, she works for the bush campaign. To say that Kerry somehow outed her is patently ridiculous.

I will agree that Kerry probably shouldn't have mentioned her, because he had no real reason to, and mentioning relatives of the opposing candidates is a bit too private to do unless you have a real reason. Still, I don't think it's all that partisan.

In fact, I think the real partisan bastards are the cheneys for attacking Kerry over saying it. All he said was that she was gay. If you attack him for saying just that, then that implies that you think there's something wrong with being gay. If there's nothing wrong with being gay, why complain about someone who says it? So, the cheneys by complaining about what Kerry said for me just publicly admitted they disapprove of their own daughter. Plus, it's partisan because cheney THANKED edwards for mentioning his gay daughter, and no cheney made a peep when Alan Keyes called all lesbians and Mary Cheney "selfish hedonists" at the GOP convention. So, when one of their own slanders her for her sexuality, it's ok, when someone from the other party mentions her in a debate that doesn't really matter, it's ok, and in fact a reason to say thank you, but when Kerry mentions her in a debate that matters and that Bush lost, it's fit to complain about. All I see is partisan spin from the Bush campaign trying to undo some of the damage the debate did, and I think what they're doing is very hateful to the gay community, not to mention Mary Cheney herself.
 
2004-10-18 07:25:21 AM
2004-10-18 07:09:31 AM wheaties
Oh, because I'll get marriage rights under a Kerry administration?

There will be no amendment at the national level, that was proved this congress. So stop teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs. I hate it when people on either side uses scare tactics.


"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."
-John Kerry


Eat me!

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/campaign/07memo.html?ex=1098072000& en=05629d06fbe701b9&ei=5070&oref=login&oref=login&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=al l&position=
 
2004-10-18 07:31:00 AM
2004-10-18 07:25:18 AM jsebrech

When Edwards mentioned the daughter, Cheney was obviously uncomfortable about it and just ended the discussion so he wouldn't have to wallop Edwards.

When Kerry did it again, it was just wrong. He could have mentioned any friend/politician he wished to, but he didn't have to mention an opponents daughter.

If you don't think it was wrong, then fine. But the polls I've seen show that most Americans felt it was wrong. And I see that shrub is getting a bounce in a lot of polls because of this. So if you want to be on the wrong side of the historical dialectic that will be your decision.
 
2004-10-18 07:32:48 AM
And on this note, have a good day everyone.
It's volunteer day for me at the Senior's home!
 
2004-10-18 07:42:08 AM
If Bush is half as bad as Kerry supporters claim then they should be asking themselves why their candidate isn't leading in the polls. Lurch must really suck.
 
2004-10-18 07:43:22 AM
McGovern 72

If you don't think it was wrong, then fine. But the polls I've seen show that most Americans felt it was wrong. And I see that shrub is getting a bounce in a lot of polls because of this. So if you want to be on the wrong side of the historical dialectic that will be your decision.

If Cheney or Bush would have brought her up as a topic, or even skirted around 'personal family' issues, then year fair play. They didn't. So yeah that sucked.

Its not like there aren't lots of other gay people out there who wouldn't MIND becoming the focus of a debate. Old style Reagan would have been to get someone who wanted to be an example, and then mention them, their concerns, their hopes, and use them as the poster people for the debate. Ya know, live ms. and ms. Jane Average who just want to get married and get on with it.

On the flip side, I am completely for Gay Marriage, gay whatever the fark they want. If you wanna hookup and get legal, good on ya, pay taxes, get junk mail, stfu. Gay people adopting kids - fantastic. Two married dudes = usually two better than average incomes in the long run, good benefits, stable environment. Two married women = two primary care givers, two loving people fawning all over some kid, fark yeah. Beats the shiat out of foster care, hands down.

/Not to say Reagan of all people would have had shiat to do with gay persons- but that was his debate tactic. Get an average schmo and rock and sock em robots over what that average person wishes for their future.
 
2004-10-18 07:43:45 AM
just browsing through your profile here McGovern 72...
"I decided the weekend before the election that Gore sucked too much to vote for. I voted for Nader and I'd do it again. And YES I live in Florida!"
yeah...you are psycho...
take political science 101 at your local community college or something and figure out that in our system of democracy thrid party candidates NEVER WIN. I'd think you'd notice that by now since you've voted in 8 of them.
As for your quote, I think he is refering to he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not on refusing to give you legal rights equivalent to marragie. I think it's just a technicallity they use so they won't piss off the Christian fundamentalists. See the key word in that quote is fundamentally.
"John Kerry and John Edwards will work to support civil unions"
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/lgbt/
 
2004-10-18 07:45:57 AM
There will only be political alternatives in office, when the population become politically and economically polarized and painfully aware of it. Otherwise you get a bellcurve on voters and expenditures of political capital.

Infortunately for most of you, liberal democracy doesn't thrive under those conditions. So things are the way they are. Get used to it. Submit. Learn to facetiously cherish it.
 
2004-10-18 07:53:33 AM
Stop whining.

If you're willing to sit idle and allow this to happen, you're an idiot.

This President has proven he cannot fiscally manage this country. Don't support his dream world...where you can spend tons of money on wars and security and give tax breaks at the same time.

Our forefathers warned us about all of this..

Nothing comes above solvency. Not safety. Not security. Not tax breaks. Nothing.
 
2004-10-18 07:59:50 AM
Also..REDS..for your reading pleasure

Why can't we all be sober?
 
2004-10-18 08:03:19 AM
As others have pointed out, there are a ton of disillusioned Republicans out there, not knowing what to do this election. I'm one of them. Actually, I'm a total social moderate, but like the traditional Republican economic platform better. That, however, has gone the way of the dodo. This year, I was going to write in John McCain. Not because I thought he could win, but because I wanted to use my vote to support someone I think is fit for the office of President. I'm going to be a poll worker at the election, so I had to go ahead and vote absentee. When I looked at my ballot, I read the following mind-blowing statement: "South Carolina law does not allow write-in votes for the office of President and Vice President." You can write someone in for the flippin' soil and water commissioner, but not President. I was so irate, I almost tore up my ballot right then. However, I did a few minutes of soul searching. I don't like where we are now. I knew that if I voted for Bush, I'd be supporting a continuation of the train wreck we're in. So I voted for Kerry. I'm still in mild shock that I did it, but there it is. Things need to change.
 
2004-10-18 08:11:03 AM
bondgirl -- I believe you made the right decision.

The Republicans have several better candidates I would of voted for (IE: McCain, Powell), but they chose to run the proven train wreck.

When they chose further train wreck, I chose the best chance to prevent it.
 
2004-10-18 08:20:54 AM
 
2004-10-18 08:25:09 AM
It's not strange the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush, it was one of the most predictable endorsements in the country.

They've endorsed the republican candidate for president for the last 80 years. It's not a real endorsement, it's a pointless rubber stamp. Completely meaningless.
 
2004-10-18 08:29:29 AM
Yeah, sure, when something good happens in Florida, we just get a plain ol' hero tag like everyone else. When something bad (that could have happened anywhere in this country) happens we get a special tag. Grrr...
 
2004-10-18 08:40:20 AM
Giantrobot, the hurricane thing is a hoax...look it up on snopes.com.
 
2004-10-18 08:41:13 AM
Jeep - I live in the same city you do...my friend...and Florida deserves the Florida tag. Pound-for-pound this state has the stupidist population in the universe. :-)
 
2004-10-18 08:42:03 AM
As usual, Douglas Adams said it best:

"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
 
2004-10-18 08:42:41 AM
I never understood the concept of a newspaper endorsing one candidate pver another. Aren't journalists supposed to be impartial?
 
2004-10-18 08:46:09 AM
Thanks for the reassurance, thethrowdown. I feel like I need group thereapy for Republicans who voted Kerry.
 
2004-10-18 08:48:32 AM
Thanks evlisevlis.

I've actually seen it being defended by christian Republicans as God sparing the poor, who normally are likely to vote Democrat, by only attacking rich Republicans who can afford all the insurance.
 
2004-10-18 08:57:23 AM
Journalists are supposed to be impartial while reporting the news.

However, they also give opinions, they just need to be clearly labled as such. Hence, the editorial page.
 
2004-10-18 08:58:42 AM
bondgirl -- you'll have to settle for a former Republican, who used to work right under the head of the Republican National Comittee for the State of Florida.
 
2004-10-18 09:04:27 AM
Thethrowdown:
I know I shouldn't get so angry. It just bothers me that people badmouth the place I know and love as home, yet have no problem coming down here for vacation, and sending their moldy parents down here to die when they hit 70.

Where's the "Alabama" tag for every time some drunken redneck livin' in a trailer marries his sister/dog/alien he saw land on his rusting Ford? Where's the NY tag for every time some homeless guy mugs an old lady on the way home from church for her 5 dollars? Of course, there aren't any. Because somehow all the bad in the world can be traced to a beautiful state full of friendly people. Keep lookin' down your nose at us New Jersey farkers, and I'll keep on smilin' when I go out to the beach and don't hafta swim in syringes.

Back to you though thethrowdown. I fully support a "Tallahassee" tag, or even better a "Miami" tag. But a large portion of Florida is much nicer than most parts of this country I've visited or lived in, and it seems kind of unfair to lump us in with this sorry excuse for a state capital, or little Havana.

And from a better news source, CNN, it's nice to see that the St. Pete Times, the city I'm from, is endorsing Kerry. Although I never really understood why newspapers feel the need to endorse anyone, it reaffirms my belief that it still is the best damn paper out there, anywhere.
Sorry for no HTML, I don't know the tags for linkey goodness.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/election.endorsements/index.html
 
2004-10-18 09:15:41 AM
Jeep -- BTW -- I'm having trouble with the mods to.. They have been idiots lately.
 
2004-10-18 09:16:13 AM
 
2004-10-18 09:18:21 AM


Either way, Bush still wins.
 
2004-10-18 09:39:41 AM
Nader 2004
Nation before Party


FYI: Wynona LaDuke, Nader's running mate in 2000, just endorsed Kerry.
 
2004-10-18 09:44:20 AM
I have to agree with Jeep. I live in St. Pete, near Tampa and having been all over the country, I can find few places that have a better balance of good weather (the occasional hurricane notwithstanding), low crime rate, decent traffic, a lot of stuff to do, hot women and liberal nudie bar laws. Yeah there are hicks and old people but there are hicks and old people everywhere.

I don't mind if you all bad mouth Florida and a lot of whacky shiat does go on in a lot of the state but there are parts of it that are normal. It sure beats living in some of the bigger citites where you can freeze to death while getting carjacked in the middle of gridlock.
 
2004-10-18 09:45:48 AM
faethe - "A lot of people down here (Florida) are also pissed because of the Hurricane issue not being discussed. Its increasingly obvious that unless you are down here, you have no idea what is going on or how bad it really is."

Or maybe we just don't care. It's sort of like living on the North Pole and biatching about your pipes always freezing up. But maybe next year will be different. Here's hoping.

/unlikely
//I bet Santa has homeowners insurance for that sort of thing
 
2004-10-18 09:46:43 AM
I just think it speaks volumes that so many Republicans are turning away from Bush. I know several. They don't have to vote for Kerry, they can just stay home on election day.

I'm planning on voting for Kerry myself. Why? One, Republican candidates for the House and Senate will have a better chance in 2006 running against an incumbent democrat. Two, Kerry has zero chance of pushing through any type of legislative agenda, so that's not a reason to vote for Bush. Three, Bush is a proven failure in counter-terrorism, foreign policy, and the economy; perhaps 9/11 and the recession are not his fault, but I'm not willing to take that chance. Four, Bush's post-9/11 counter terrorism net seems to catch more innocents than terrorists; i.e. it is more show than substance. Five, the absurdity of the recent tax changes: Theresa Heinz Kerry pays roughly 13% of her income in taxes (most of her income is dividends; I'm as against taxing inflationary gains as the next person, but a lower rate on all investment gains is not a solution to the inflationary gains problem); those in the 15% tax bracket are paying a marginal rate of 28% if you include Social Security/Medicare; we are now at the point where a flat tax system would *raise* taxes on the rich.

The only argument that I see in favor of voting for Bush is that he would appoint better judges. However, I don't see that as enough of an advantage to overwhelm the disadvantages.

I really think that Kerry is missing a few tricks here. As I said previously, a flat tax (loved by conservatives) would actually raise taxes on the rich (loved by liberals); as such, it would please both ends of the spectrum and leave Bush floundering; yet, Kerry is going with a more partisan tax cut rollback instead. There are three major weaknesses in the current healthcare system: insurance workers who make too much for Medicaid but who do not get benefits through their employer; insurance for the recently unemployed (yes, one can buy one's own through CORBA, but who can afford to do that? Most simply hope to avoid illness until a new job is available); pre-existing conditions from when one was unemployed or not getting benefits from one's employer. Instead of narrow solutions to these problems (support Bush's groups program; incorporate health insurance into the unemployment insurance; ban pre-existing condition clauses), Kerry advocates a nationalized system that he is not going to get.
 
2004-10-18 09:46:49 AM
"Tampa Tribune joins the rest of the country in throwing up its hands and refusing to endorse a presidential candidate"

Shouldn't newspapers--oh, I dunno--be OBJECTIVE and not endorse things?
 
2004-10-18 09:59:29 AM
Great to see that one of the only vehicles capable of breaking the Republicrat Duopoly is instead sidelining journalistic integrity and acting like petulant babies. Yellow, if you ask me.
 
2004-10-18 10:04:20 AM
on_ward33 has it right -- there is AMPLEinformation available for a paper to choose a candidate to endorse.
 
2004-10-18 10:14:38 AM
And this is the big one that pissed me off. I didn't like Kerry or Edwards outing Cheney. Yeah, yeah, those of us who follow politics know she is a lesbian, but there are people somewhere who don't. I'm sure there are people I grew up with who don't know I'm gay and I wouldn't want it mentioned on television. It smacked of a cold political calculation,

No it didn't. Cold political calculation would have kept them from saying it. It doesn't help them politically. It ticks off gays, who would otherwise be leaning Kerry, and it doesn't bring them homophobes. At best, it might push a few homophobes not to vote, but this is unlikely: they'll vote for Bush even if they don't like Cheney. However, by reminding everyday people of the issue, it makes it more likely that people will vote for the candidate with whose position they agree; I strongly suspect that most of the undecideds are uncomfortable with gays; people who are liberal on these issues were already voting for Kerry.

To me, it smacks of stupidity. Want to point out hypocrisy? Point out that Bush is now against state rights on the issue; point out that Kerry's current stance is what Bush held four years ago. Or just ignore the issue. I'm pretty sure that most gays realize that Kerry is better on gay rights than Bush. Why bring up an issue that hurts him overall? You don't see Bush trying to bring up abortion; in fact, he hid from the issue when they were asking him about judicial appointments; he used code words: no litmus test. Pro-Lifers know what he meant; he doesn't need to spell it out or pander to them.

He's also doing the same thing with foreign policy. Bush is weak to criticisms that his foreign policy is overactive and too unilateral. Is Kerry criticizing him for that? No, he is saying that Bush is not active enough in adding issues to the multi-lateral North Korea talks; he is willing to go it alone instead. Now, I have every confidence that his actual foreign policy would be better, just like Clinton's was (campaigning: no MFN for China; yet, one of Clinton's first acts as president: extending MFN status with China), but this offered Bush a chance to look thoughtful and moderate.
 
2004-10-18 10:29:34 AM
 
2004-10-18 10:44:32 AM
I just want the one who will allow me to have unlimited hot ghay liasons.
 
2004-10-18 10:54:16 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how few people understand the true gay marriage amendment proposal. Most people think it will ban gay marriages on a federal level.
 
2004-10-18 11:07:59 AM
Marriage?

"Not I", said the cat.

On the other hand, messing with the constitution to push your morality is bad business. It didn't work in the 20's either.
 
2004-10-18 11:10:30 AM
"We would like to announce we have no opinion"

Well doesn't that make you so very interesting?

/it's not news...
 
2004-10-18 11:23:59 AM
bondgirl -- I believe you made the right decision.

The Republicans have several better candidates I would of voted for (IE: McCain, Powell), but they chose to run the proven train wreck.

When they chose further train wreck, I chose the best chance to prevent it.


bondgirl:

Don't feel bad, just remember the following:

Bush 2004 -> Hillary 2008
Kerry 2004 -> McCain 2008

I noticed you are from S.C., so your vote for President probably won't count. The Senate race does. The entire time I was watching the Senate debates, I kept thinking that Jim DeMint is too conservative, Inez Tenenbaum is too liberal. Jim DeMint is running as a Republican Party tool, and his record shows he will put party before constituents. Inez is in denial that she is a major league liberal. Jim DeMint's platform is extremist, highly ideological, and foolish. Inez's platform is that Jim DeMint's platform is extremist, highly ideological, and foolish. DeMint's "tax reform" ideas will lead to most of us paying more either in taxes or for services. Inez proudly supports tax increases (for education, of course). Neither is a good choice, although both are probably still better than Fritz Hollings.

It's too bad we can't clone Lindsey Graham.
 
2004-10-18 11:39:43 AM
"Shouldn't newspapers--oh, I dunno--be OBJECTIVE and not endorse things?"

Guess you don't read the paper much.

Along with the news sections (which should be objective), most papers have editorial pages, in which they give opinions and endorsements. It's been that way for decades.

As long as the opinions are clearly labled as such, what's the problem?
 
2004-10-18 12:00:18 PM
I really think that Kerry is missing a few tricks here. As I said previously, a flat tax (loved by conservatives) would actually raise taxes on the rich (loved by liberals); as such, it would please both ends of the spectrum and leave Bush floundering; yet, Kerry is going with a more partisan tax cut rollback instead.

Actually, in other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia, the flat-tax is favored by the left.

I would strongly support a flat-tax with no deductions (except for dependents) on all income above a certain level. The wealthy would pay their fair share, no more, no less.

A flat-tax would also have the bonus of allowing the wealthy to use their money in the way that they think is best without having to worry about hiding it in tax shelters. This would make their money more productive, increase investment, and boost the economy.

The flat-tax is a win-win situation for all involved.

in fact, he hid from the issue when they were asking him about judicial appointments; he used code words: no litmus test. Pro-Lifers know what he meant; he doesn't need to spell it out or pander to them.

Actually, I do believe Bush when he says "no litmus test on abortion". He's all talk, no action. Look at his Texas record.

http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa102800a.htm

I strongly recommend all pro-life farkers read the above link.
 
2004-10-18 12:07:49 PM
How appropriate. After all, what's more American than apathy?
 
2004-10-18 12:14:02 PM
wayward2, you're right. Both DeMint and Tenenbaum are idiots. Thier performance on Meet the Press yesterday morning was painful to watch, the way they both danced around answering quiestions. I, too, wish we could clone Graham. This is a pathetic election year.
 
2004-10-18 12:27:14 PM
Neither Kerry nor Edwards outed Mary Cheney. In the VP debate, she was brought up by the moderator (but not mentioned by name).

Cheney himself has talked about the fact that she is gay. If he valued her privacy, he wouldn't have brought her into the spotlight.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said, referring to his daughter, Mary. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone."

So Bush's VP agrees with Kerry on this position...what's so wrong about bringing that up?
 
2004-10-18 12:30:06 PM
wayward2, you're right. Both DeMint and Tenenbaum are idiots. Thier performance on Meet the Press yesterday morning was painful to watch, the way they both danced around answering quiestions. I, too, wish we could clone Graham. This is a pathetic election year.

Don't blame me, I voted for Ravenel.

I'm leaning toward Inez for one simple reason. In S.C., incumbent Senators tend to get re-elected. If DeMint wins, because he's an incumbent Republican, we'll never get rid of him. If Inez wins, Mark Sanford will almost certainly run against her in 2010. It's no secret he wants a Senate seat. The only reason he ran for Governor is because Lindsey Graham already had the nomination for Senate all but locked up in 2002. Inez will have to behave herself, or she'll be a one-term Senator.
 
2004-10-18 12:39:33 PM
http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

A site to help you figure out who to vote for based on YOUR views.

It said I should vote for Badnarik.
 
2004-10-18 12:43:48 PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Ravenel.

Me too.
 
2004-10-18 12:53:27 PM
Can we just disenfranchise the whole state?

The Supreme Court may have no other choice than to, if a statewide recount is necessary but the Diebold e-voting machines are incapable of performing one.

Either the entire state will be decided on the basis of a few handfuls of re-countable absentee and military ballots, or Florida's electoral votes will not go to any candidate -- in which case nobody will have enough electoral votes to win and Congress will choose our next President for us.
 
2004-10-18 01:03:16 PM
Disqualifying florida may yield a tie, but not necessarily. Either candidate could realistically win without taking florida.

Personally, I'm assuming Kerry is dead in florida, if I were him I'd write it off in favor of Penn and midwestern states.
 
2004-10-18 01:45:20 PM
GorgeousOrifice

Someone who's interested only in whining about the unfair nature of "the system" on the shoulders of fellow holier-than-thou, too-pure-to-get-their-hands-dirty will naturally gravitate to a third party.

Not true. I WAS an active member of the Republican party (a precinct delegate at the State caucuses), but I became disgusted with the Republican's move to the middle while appeasing the Christian right (abortion, etc). I don't agree with the Republican Party's view that they should play moral arbiter of the nation. Furthermore, I became disgusted with the Republican Party's move to the middle (at the same time the Democrats were moving to the far left).

The final straws which made my break from the Republican party complete, were this administration's domestic policies. The Medicare Bill (the largest government entitlement ever), the Education Bill (without real school choice and without competition, public education will still fail), and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, which I deem a major infringement on our civil liberties, is wholly unnecessary since the information was available to stop 9/11 if our agencies had worked together. Of course, if Bill Clinton hadn't directed Jamie Gorelick to write a memo (hyperlink not working and can be found here: http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf) which specified that the FBI and CIA couldn't work together on investigations, 9/11 may not have happened to begin with. Then again, Clinton could have taken Bin Laden 3 times.

However, I really dispise the Democratic party view that you can do what you want without personal responsibility because they'll take care of you. Action without responsibility (i.e. Government maintains responsibility, government will take care of you, etc.). The only thing I want the government to do for me is to protect me (and my family) and protect my property from harm or theft (this applies on the local and national levels).

The only party that believes in true freedom is the Libertarian party. Do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe on the personal freedom of others. If you want to wreck your brain and your life using drugs...go right ahead. Of course, true freedom has caveats...personal responsbility.

Finally, my other reason for gravitating to the Libertarian party is the view that we should stay out of other countries politics (unless they are a threat...please don't bring up Iraq..blah, blah, blah). Libertarians are more isolationist in terms of foreign policy (a little too isolationist for me...but no matter). Cease all foreign aid...we'll trade with your crappy country, but no aid for you. It's up to you to take care of your own country.

If you want to be a mindless automoton and continue spouting party rhetoric instead of fighting for real change...continue to vote Democrat or Republican. Otherwise, take a look at a 3rd party.

Vote Libertarian.

 
2004-10-18 02:05:11 PM
Good move by the Tampa Tribune! I could only wish that every newspaper/news channel would catch on to this!

Oh yeah, Vote Libertarian! Why? Because they are the only party that is even remotely interested in preserving our freedoms by telling the government to lay off.
 
2004-10-18 03:16:43 PM
They made a stronger statement about this election by refusing to support either of the two major party candidates than they could have by making an endorsement. Bravo I say.

And to all those who are questioning the endorsement of candidates vs. impartiality in the media, know that the concept of all news media as ideally impartial is relatively new, especially to newspapers. Traditionally, when most major cities had multiple dailys, there was a paper for every party, all of which were unabashedly partial. Frankly, a newspaper newsroom is one of the most partisan environments in the world. While all sides are heard in the newsroom, control of the Editorial Board, and consequently the political leanings of a newspaper, usually rest in the hands of the owner, publisher, and editor-in-chief, who guard it closely. But most reputable dailys do at least pay lipservice to the idea that those political leanings should only show up in the Opinion section, and not in the News section.
 
2004-10-18 03:36:27 PM
TO all the republicans and Libertarians who arn't sure who to vote for because you don't like bush and arn't sure. By all means PLEASE vote Libertarian I encourage all republicans who are unhappy with bush PLEASE PLESAE vote for badnarik.
 
2004-10-18 03:37:38 PM
There are over 10 papers who endorsed bush in 2000 and have either endorsed kerry or not endorsed anyone. There are no papers who endoresed gore moving to bush this time.

Just like the people, ther are tons of republcians voting for kerry, bush's base is falling.
 
2004-10-18 03:44:21 PM
Um, hate to break it to you, but it's not "heroic" for a newspaper not to be able to (or refuses to) examine the facts. Kerry is no angel, but Bush has done horrible damage to America and the world.

I guess they couldn't endorse Kerry, or their parent company would have crushed them.

Way to go.
 
B82
2004-10-18 03:46:08 PM
Kooter

I encourage all Democrats unahppy with Kerry's flip flopping on the war to vote for Nader, who at least is honest about being a peacenik. Bush will win because of all the moderates that don't want to give France veto power over our foreign policy. Kerry will win NO red states, except maybe New Hampshire. And there ARE Gore papers that are endorsing Bush this time. Try to get out of your liberal cocoon once in a while
 
2004-10-18 03:48:32 PM
B82

Kerrys going to win most moderates some republicans and all demos will vote him out. People are getting tired of being lied to and are sick of the Iraq mistake. I encourage you to open up your mind
 
B82
2004-10-18 03:51:24 PM
All Democrats except Ron Silver, Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and countless others who don't make a big deal about their endorsements, unlike most Kerry converts.

Bush has like 90% of his party with him. Kerry has about 80%
 
2004-10-18 04:03:07 PM
Rov silver has alwas voted repug
Zell Miller is a racists segregationist and deserves the repug party and ed kock is unimportant.
You also forgot the Saudi Royal Family and the Royal Family of Kuwait bush is good at getting the kings on his side.



Look at just a few republican bigwigs voting kerry

Top security advisor to first President Bush criticizes George W.; calls Iraq war a "failing venture"


Republican judge: "The record of this incumbent president is a history not only of repeated violations of ... our democracy, but of the core values of the Christian faith."
Nixon EPA Chief will vote for Kerry: "It's almost as if the motto of the (Bush) administration...is...polluter protection."


Republican ex-gov: "Kerry has ... far superior intellect and character than Bush. He speaks honestly to the American people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly...he has far better credentials..."


Former Republican Congressman: "Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards."


Son of Republican President Eisenhower endorses Kerry; calls Bush's war moves "maverick": "Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance."
Republicans Against Bush Meetup in 136 Places Around the World.


Vet: "As a third generation Republican...I can't support the current administration. My vote is for a man who has demonstrated courage and integrity and who will best support his country in a time of war."
"I can see myself as a Schwarzenegger Republican. But I can't vote for Bush."
"It is about the betrayal of traditional, conservative limited-government values, and the use of misleading rhetoric, by ... Bush..."
 
U
2004-10-18 04:08:20 PM
B82 - you are ignorant. the perfect bush supporter.
 
B82
2004-10-18 04:16:17 PM
So if MIller is such a a racist segreationalist, why didn't you Dems bring it up in the 90's? OH THATS RIGHT, because he was supporting Clinton at the time, so what did it matter? And if being a segregationalist is antithetical to being a Democrat, explain Robert Byrd being in the Senate for 40 years. Ron Silver has always been a liberal, he even was on Crossfire a few years ago as the Democrat guy.

Most of the people you named have been RINOs at best, who cares about them? Under them, the Republican Party was a permanant minority in the Congress. There are many southern and western conservative Democrats who are running based on much President Bush likes them, like Tom Daschle. That is why they aren't asking Kerry to campaign with them
 
B82
2004-10-18 04:17:57 PM
U - you are a whiner. the perfect kerry supporter.
 
2004-10-18 04:21:06 PM
B82

Ok whatever makes you feel better. If the best thing you can come up with is that Ron Silver some 9/11 baby is voting bush like he did in 2000, then you really are reaching. I mean IKEs son a lifelong rep and the son of a rep president voting Kerry I guess isn't a big deal. There are about 100 or so more people who served during the reagan and Bush I admins who were reps and are now voting Kerry. But hey you guys got Ron Silver, that actor who never see act.
 
2004-10-18 05:03:41 PM
Bush has like 90% of his party with him. Kerry has about 80%

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the I-am-a-lifelong-Republican-but-not-this-time coming out this election, but it's not showing up in the polls. Pollster John Zogby finds this one of the strangest things about this election.

As for what I've seen and heard, Kerry is doing better than any Democrat I can remember. Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman signs and stickers were a rarity. Kerry/Edwards stickers are common. This is especially strange considering that I live in a very "red" part of a very "red" state. Kerry hasn't even been here since winning the nomination and Edwards has only shown up once, even though he was born here. Kerry hasn't even put forth any serious effort at trying to win this state.

Usually, incumbent Presidents who are re-elected have double-digit leads at this point. Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, and Eisenhower all did. Harry Truman was the only President in the past 100 years not to. Bush's numbers do not look good. His job approval rating is below 50% and most Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. His numbers most resemble Jimmy Carter's in 1980. The race is Kerry's to lose.
 
B82
2004-10-18 09:04:51 PM
Kooter

Ike was barely a Republican. He would have been a Democrat if Adlai hadn't taken his spot
 
Displayed 185 of 185 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report