Of the usual suspects, PhillyFan has already said he's not, William is too embarrassed to say, just wondering if anyone is planning on voting for him....

In a word, HELL NO!!!

I think my arm would fall of if I voted for any one of the Bush family.

~Adam

I could vote for George P... (Jebbie's son) if he were competing at a wet underwear contest I'm sure... but otherwise no.

Huh? A Bush male worth looking at? Sure. I don't believe it. You're kidding, right?

I wanted to vote for Bush, but we are using the old paper punch method, and am afraid of another 'dangling chad' fiasco, so I am not voting at all this time.

Please....voting for dumbya? Not a chance.

I am debating on doing something I have never done before, which is just vote a straight Democratic ticket. I just feel like to hell with the Republicans in charge of all 3- we need some checks and balances going on- and I don't want Bush getting to name any Supremes.

Jeb's son is a hottie. Too bad he's one of...them. Oh well, I'll just settle for a one-night stand, them dump his ass. wink

George P, just waiting for me!

My vote is for John Kerry!!!

A cold day in hell before a vote cast for Bush. :mad:

Is anyone voting for Nader? I saw where he just urged Kerry to pick Edwards. So is he now joining the Democratic Party's political action program? Does he think with Edwards on the ticket that he'll somehow start siphoning votes NOT from Kerry, but from W? What planet is he on?

In 2000, I strongly debated whether or not to vote for Nader vs. Gore, since the latter was so far ahead in my state (he won by 16 points) and I found some aspects of Clintonism, as well as Joe Lieberman's Republicanism in Democratic clothing, repellant. Gore struck me as very capable, and I still believe he would have made a decent president--certainly far better than what we were stuck with. (There was absolutely no chance of me voting for W given his homophobic, pro-business record in Texas, his evident idiocy, Cheney's presence on the ticket, and the fact that just 8 years earlier, another, sharper, more moderate President Bush had been in office--I mean, there are OTHER Republicans out there, people.)

This time, though I'm hardly enthusiastic about Kerry, I'll vote for him without hesitation. For some inconceivable reason, W is close to Kerry in my home state, and a vote for Nader just might damage Kerry. I just hope enough people in Ohio, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada and Florida will do so. Actually, if only Florida and Ohio go for Kerry alongside the states Gore won, it'll be moot.

George P's hispanic good looks are purely his mother's doing. One look at him and one wonders if Jeb was present at the moment of conception. Meanwhile the only Bush I will be voting for is the beer and that is only if there are no other beers to choose from.

So far no Bush votes, interesting.

I voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and will be voting for them again this fall. So the answer to your question is, yes, there's at least one here.

slightly right of center here...but still won't be caught dead voting for bush.

At various times over the past six months I've felt that I might just sit out this election - mainly because W's pandering to the right wing on the marriage amendment and reliance on religion imagery in general is anathema to me. Right now, though, I'm feeling the stakes are so high for the country that I may vote for him anyway. Kerry is NOT an option for me, so I'd list myself as leaning toward voting for Bush.

Florida vote for Kerry here. Mark it down that you heard it here first--Bush loses Florida (again) in 2004. :cool:

Have you considered voting Libertarian? One of my life long Republican friends plans to vote Lib this year as he has been troubled by the dominance of the social conservative GOP wing.
Voting for Kerry is not an option for him either.

This is by no means a one issue campaign (W deserves to be thrown out of office regardless of his deplorable positions on human rights) but how ANY gay man could say they are even CONSIDERING voting for Bush and his bigoted cronies absolutely boggles my mind! ....this is the equivalent of an African-American voting for a candidate that advocates reinstating slavery and segregation!

And for those who have not been following the issues this is NOT solely about the "institution of marriage" either....have any of you supposedly gay Pro-Bush supporters ever been fired from your job solely due to your sexual orientation at the hands of a homophobic boss (like yours truly)?....I won't even begin to recite the HUNDREDS of other blatantly discriminatory anti-human rights issues that a vote for Bush/Cheney inherently supports.

While I am appalled by the bigotry that the ultra right-wing "religious conservatives" continue to endorse mere words can hardly express the utter disgust when gay "Uncle Tom's" attempt to justify their support for "leaders" who have made it ubundantly clearly that they view us as second-class citizens who are not deserving of the same basic human rights that the "normal" heterosexuals are entitled to and would prefer that we quietly go back into the closet! :mad:

[ June 25, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I'm actively campaigning against Bush and any other legislator in favor of taking away civil rights of the GLBT community. Get out and register to vote and make your voice count with a vote in primaries and in November.

As one of the FEW ardent Libertarians on this board, I have to admit that I take exception with W over;

1. His free-spending ways - This deficit may never be retired in my lifetime.

2. The Patriot Act - this is the most egregiously un-American act of liberty suppression in this country during MY lifetime (apologies to the Japanese, but I wasn't alive during WW2).

3. Attempting to take my tax dollars and disperse them across religious organizations for "public works." If those groups want to run rehab houses, they are free to do so. But taking my money allows the congregation's money to go further in spreading their poison in other venues.
No sir; I do not like that BULLSHIT one bit.
Let the bible robots fend for themselves.

4. War. Not a big fan of it. Its necessary at times (Afghanistan). But I was never sold on the Iraq gig before it happened, and I'm even more against it now since no one any where can make any direct, provable connections that Saddam = Terrorism.
We are fightin' terrorism, right?
Well FINISH THE f**kIN' DRILL! Iraq took us OFF of focusing on cleansing Afghanistan / catching Bin Laden / maybe conducting some Cambodia-esque raids into Pakistan to catch the bad guys.
Finish...the...drill.
Pssst! Iraq wasn't part of the drill.

That said, I am no fan of Kerry either. For the first time since I turned 18, I will not be voting.

There are most assuredly Supreme Court nominees at stake in the next term...gays won't survive another four years of Bush if that happens. Vote Kerry or don't vote....strike that, vote Kerry.

Well said, HornFan!....that is one of the most often overlooked and least publicized MAJOR issues of this upcoming election....there will unquestionably be at least two (if not three) new justices appointed over the next four years and God help us if W is still in office when that takes place.

Despite the fervent opposition that would undoubtedly be voiced by many fair-minded Democrats those appointees would likely set out cause back DECADES (especially with the inevitable gay marriage and related civil rights cases that will almost certainly be heard by the high court in the coming years) and reverse ALL the progress that we have recently made thanks to the efforts of so many hard working individuals and organizations like the HRC and ACLU, among others.

I made up my mind at the beginning of the primary season- whoeever can beat Bush will get my vote. I normally dont go with that ideology- however I think this time is necessary.

Ive been registered with both parties. In 1996 I voted for Bob Dole (in NC it didnt matter and I didnt care for Clinton then). In 2000, I wrote in Ralph Nader (they didnt allow the write in but I wanted to spite them since Bush would win the state outright and I didnt like Gore being Bush's twin).

This time around there isnt really "choose the lesser of two evils". Youve got 2 choices and 3 candidates. That being- vote for Kerry and we get rid of the main evil. Vote for Nader and Bush stays. Honestly I think Nader is starting to hurt Bush as much as Kerry, however if its close lets vote the way that will benefit us most- that being get rid of Bush.

[ June 25, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: DallasUNC ]

It's a bitch, isn't it, when those darned judges Bush may appoint won't make up things not found in the Constitution to satisfy the needs and whims of screaming leftists who repeatedly see their legislators refuse to implement such extreme laws. Yup. Nothing like having unelected, lifetime judges do the legislating. Much more difficult to counter.

People (and I'll include judges in that term) are prone to find in the Constitution what they want to find. Something akin to the Bible. Obviously there is nothing written to watertight that there can be only one interpretation.

Say what you will about substantive due process; my concern is that Bush wants to line the Supreme Court with justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. And ultimately, that's not the general makeup of the nation. We're a country that's evenly divided, and the Court should at least reflect that (as it does now).

Shrub wants to appoint more radical fishing buddies for The Dick, Cheney.

W. is on record stating that Scalia is his "model" Supreme Court judge and we ALL know what a friend to gays the hunter is.

Another reason W. MUST be defeated is we NEED some balance in DC. You twenty-somethings are going to live with this for a long time if the current trend continues.

I'm NOT voting for my fellow Texan, Bush. Oh, the Shock & Awe!

AU, why won't you even give Kerry a chance? I hear many people saying Kerry is not even a question, but except for people on the Far Right, I don't understand why this is the case. W's politics and policies are clear; but Kerry has not even had the opportunity to govern. So why not give him that opportunity?

As a Louisiana resident, your vote FOR Kerry could prove crucial, since it appears possible that he could win Louisiana, which might provide him with a slim electoral cushion to turn Bush out of the White House. BTW, I do respect the fact that you're thinking of not voting. This election, even more than 2000, may require as many non-ultraconservatives and wacko bible thumpers to hit the polls as any time in our history.

It's fascinating to think how far the political discourse has shifted to the right. In 1904, a "liberal" (progressive) Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, defeated a conservative Democrat (which in 1896 and 1900 had nominated populist progressives) by over 2 million votes. Roosevelt had assumed office after the assassination of William McKinley, a pro-business president (who had been a progressive while in Congress). In addition, the Socialist Party got 400,000 votes, the progressive Populist Party got 117,000 votes, one Socialist Labor Party got 31,000 votes, while another managed 1,000. (The reformist Prohibition Party got 200,000). Today so many folks cannot even conceive that there was a much broader political discourse, and that it wasn't as conservative as it is today.

[ June 26, 2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Yes I'm voting for Bush. And I have a daughter serving in Iraq.

As for being gay and Bush not supporting gay marriage: Get real - we are never going to have gay marriage, or gays in the military, or a woman president, or a black president. No I'm not a pessimist, just realistic.

I'm tempted to hope Kerry wins, because than that will mean on Outsports there will not be any complaining about the government any more ! We will pull out of Iraq, the economy will improve, there will be no more Terrorist attacks on our country, gays will get married, and there will not be any lieing or scandals in Washington ! ! !
What will all you Dems do with all your free time ?

Assuming that all "Dems" have the same prediction of the future if Kerry wins is like saying all fags are crystal-addicted circuit boys.

Will the world get miraculously better if Kerry wins? No - there is too much shit we have to clean up first.

As for "complaining about the government," I don't recall ever complaining about anything as unspecific as that. What I have continually complained about is an Administration - not all Republicans, not all conservatives, but a specific administration - that has bungled nearly everything it has touched in the last 4 years.

As an economist I cannot support Bush's policies, because I think they are short-sighted and damaging in the long run to effective capitalism.

As a gay man I cannot support Bush, not just because of the FMA, but because he surrounds himself with anti-gay bigots (Gale Norton, John Ashcroft) in his administration, and is beholden to the "pro-family" movement for the base of his support. When a president invites Lou Sheldon, one of the worst anti-gay propagandists in this country, to White House events, he loses my vote.

As someone who lives in DC, who works 7 blocks from that White House, and who lived through the terror of 9/11, I cannot support Bush because I believe he cynically and irresponsibly used that terror attack to launch in ill-conceived war on Iraq, and left us vulnerable. Now our military is stretched too thin, our first responders still lack the training and financial support to be effective in another attack, and I don't believe there is a city in America that is really ready for another 9/11, God forbid it comes.

As an American I cannot support Bush because I believe he is an ineffective leader; that he lacks the capacity, or at least the will, to analyze the results of his actions and admit when he is wrong. To be a leader is not to be perfect, it is to do what is best given the information available. Bush refuses to even acknowledge he has made mistakes, and I believe he has set up a White House structure that can only result in failure.

Finally, as someone who loves this country - a country to which my ancestors fled in desperation as they were starved out of their own homeland, and which has rewarded them greatly - I cannot support Bush because I believe he has squandered the unique position America was in during the late 90's, and especially after 9/11, and has cost us the support of much of the world. The damage done to the reputation of the United States is perhaps the worst failure of the Bush Presidency, and I cannot reward that with any kind of support.

Kerry was not my first choice, but I believe he is a decent, honest, honorable man who has the ability to understand the mess we are in and devise at least some strategies to get us out of it. And, more importantly, I believe he is a man not so blinded by either his ideology or his sense of moral superiority that he will not admit his own mistakes, and try to rectify them.

I don't think Kerry will be a great president, but he may surprise me. But I'd rather have that than the risk of 4 more years with GWB.

I'm about as cynical as they come, but the first two are definitely going to happen, and in my lifetime. It'll be a while for the others, though.

I'm a GOP-leaning independent, and I'm voting for Kerry. Not that it'll matter in Georgia.

Never say never, and also know that I am a liberal, flag waving Democrat who supports the troops!!! But having said that, I used to support Howard Dean. Why? Because he was right about the war in Iraq. The wrong war at the wrong time. And remember how much heat he took for that? I sure as heck do. We should have stayed in and concentrated on Afghanistan. But now that the can of worms has been opened in Iraq, we must stay and see this through, even though its costing an arm and a leg literally. John Kerry is not stupid, and I agree that many may be underestimating him. We truly cannot afford 4 more years of this fiasco.

We already HAVE gay marriage, in Massachusetts. It'll eventually be approved in other northeastern states (New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.), possibly California, some of the other western states, and eventually in the Midwest.

We are closer to the day when we'll have gays openly serving in the military. If Kerry wins and Wesley Clark becomes Secretary of Defense, I could see it becoming standard policy.

We're not far off from a female president; supposedly a recent poll showed that someone like Elizabeth Dole would do well in a national race, and a moderate female Democrat possibly also could do well.

And had Colin Powell not damaged himself so badly with this administration, he very likely could have been elected president within the next three election cycles. I think Osufan is being extremely pessimistic. Some parts of the United States will always be holdouts, but as we know from our brief (in the larger scheme of things) history, change eventually does move across the land. The United States, let's not ever forget, was born in revolutionary and has continually set the pace for innovations, including in the political realm.

CPT, thank you for your eloquent response.

[ June 26, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

fantomas wrote, "As a Louisiana resident, your vote FOR Kerry could prove crucial."

Except that I don't live in Louisiana, nor have I ever.
I used to be AU Tiger in LA (which was Los Angeles). Now I'm AU Tiger in ATL (which is Atlanta).

And to your point about giving Kerry a chance, his voting record in the Senate is all the track record I need.

Lastly, I am still registered in CA; Kerry will record a solid win there, so my vote is irrelevant. And there is no impetus (had there been one of my behalf) to register here in GA, as Bush is looking like a landslide winner in the Peach State.

But again, I hate both of these candidates and see no point in casting a vote for someone that I do not believe in.

Sorry about that; I was working with the LA and assumed it was Louisiana, not the City of Lost Angels.

I have to say that while I will not vote for W and think he is the worst and most dangerously inept president I've ever lived under, I don't "hate" him. I just don't think he should ever have gotten the nomination in 2000, let alone have been app...well, I won't go there again.

So much for Kerry being a spokesperson for the poor of the U.S., so much for talk of the Haliburton conflict of interest, we got future conflicts with your golden boy and his working class wife.........


From L.A. Times:

Teresa Heinz Kerry, through a network of investments in blue-chip corporations, venture capital funds and municipal bonds, controls a family fortune worth an estimated $1 billion, an examination of public records shows.

The $1 billion figure is double the estimates of her wealth that are widely cited in news stories about her husband, Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

The couple would rank as the wealthiest to occupy the White House, far surpassing such storied presidential fortunes as the Kennedys’. Their assets are so vast and far-reaching that they mirror the U.S. economy, and will likely raise questions about conflicts of interest.

“She represents a new ballgame in terms of her wealth and in terms of the wealth she controls,” said Kevin Phillips, a political commentator and author of the history “Wealth and Democracy.”

Heinz Kerry’s investments, worth an estimated $500 million in 1995, have grown over the last nine years to $1 billion or more, even accounting for large living expenses and charitable contributions, according to an analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Senate financial disclosure reports, probate documents and other public records.

Since key details of Heinz Kerry’s investments are not in the public record, a precise valuation is not possible. The Los Angeles Times’ analysis produced estimates as low as $900 million and as high as $3.2 billion. Three senior executives at investment companies that handle accounts for wealthy clients reviewed The Times’ study and said the $1-billion valuation was a fair and conservative estimate.

Heinz Kerry has declined requests by The Times in recent months for interviews. Campaign representatives for Sen. Kerry and his wife said the couple regard their assets as private. The representatives also declined to provide answers to written questions over the last two weeks.

Heinz Kerry’s money is actively managed every day of the year, providing capital to Gannett, Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer and Procter & Gamble, among many others. It helps finance municipal sewer systems, technology start-ups, schools and more.

The trust accounts are held at Mellon Financial Corp., the Pittsburgh institution that has long handled the affairs of the Heinz family. She inherited the family’s fortune in the food business 13 years ago after the death of her first husband.

In 2003, the Heinz trusts made 890 trades in stocks, bonds, funds and other investments — more than three trades for every day that securities markets were open. In dozens of cases, the trades were for assets valued above $1 million, and scores of other trades involved assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Heinz Kerry’s net worth is usually estimated at half a billion dollars, though these estimates are not explained in documentation.

But The Times examined financial disclosures as far back as 1982 filed by Sen. John Heinz, R-Pa., and Kerry. In 1995, H.J. Heinz Co. filed an SEC document that showed Heinz Kerry was the beneficiary of trusts that held $400 million of Heinz stock. Separately in 1995, Kerry filed a Senate disclosure report that showed Heinz Kerry had other assets worth an estimated $100 million.

The Times examined the portfolio of stocks and bonds for each year since 1995, and concluded that it grew to roughly $1.3 billion, in part by diversifying out of Heinz stock. Records and public statements show that charitable contributions and family living expenses could have drained no more than $300 million out of the trust fund. Last month, she disclosed that she had income of about $5.1 million in 2003, apparently representing some of the income generated by the trusts.

Heinz Kerry inherited a vast fortune from the late Sen. Heinz. The money is held mainly by seven trust funds and several other investment accounts set up to benefit her and her three children, as well as to provide for charitable contributions. Heinz Kerry’s money is generally kept separate from her husband’s, according to the Senate disclosure report.

Personally, I don't give a rat's behind about how much Kerry or his wife have or are worth. Bottom line to me is this: Shrub represents the corporations in the country, the Democrats and in this case John Kerry speak for the working class, the middle class, and the not so fortunates, including myself. No comparison.

Given that both candidates have incomes far in excess of what any reasonable person would consider necessary to meet the basic material necessities of life, how do you propose judging the worthiness of either to be President, assuming that one of the two major party candidates should become president?

I would judge them by their actions. What has each done with his wealth? What does each propose as the proper thing to do with great wealth? What have been their expressed philosophies of how wealth should be used by individuals? Have their actions matched their words?

[ June 27, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Excellent points sportinlife. Let their actions speak louder than words.

I would like to make a suggestion to those that are not crazy about either Bush or Kerry, but don't have an extreme dislike for either... Vote for Kerry. The fact that you feel that Bush has done a mediocre job or worse should mean he is not worthy of your vote for election. You may feel that Kerry may be as bad as Bush, or perhaps worse. If that is the case, you shouldn't vote for him next time around. But it is possible he could surpass your expectations and be a good President. I just don't think incumbents should be rewarded for mediocre or poor performance in office.

If you have an extreme dislike for both Bush and Kerry, let that be known by voting for a third party candidate of your choice.

As far as my philosophy, that is the way I vote, regardless of the political parties involved. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats (and third party candidates) in the past based on it.

[ June 27, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

I'll be voting for W. He's has my money, my time, my support and my endorsement. There are 5-6 hard core liberals on this board that love to take me to task on W. He's not perfect but he's okay in my book when I review the total options presented. Save your time and effort-you're not going to change my opinion. Sure W misses the point on gay marriage and several points w/ the environment but my life is better off with a President that doesn't blame other people, delegates wells and hires the right people. He understands global economy, the value of creating good paying jobs (not Union hacks)and knows what accountability means. He knows America needs to re-invent education (it's owned by TEAs and NEAs who fear accountability) And given four more years he will make the world safer, stronger and a brighter place ultimately for all of us.

Eastside,

How do you feel about W. having multiple Supreme Court nominees if he gets a 2nd term? I know I'm not going to change your mind and I don't care to argue...I'm just curious.

Appointments of Supreme Court Justices are a right that the sitting President has under the Constitutions- just because W would nominate someone doesn't mean that they will be confirmed. Very few Senate seats will change hands this November. So ratification of Supreme Court nominees will take a bi-partisan effort. The litmus test will be is this person good or great? not a single issue or fit a certain profile. Past failures like Carswell and Haynesworth, Bork and Parker (under Herbert Hoover) have all been nominated by Republican Presidents. I don't see W having a veto proof Senate and or House. Checks and Balances do work in our system.

But in all honesty how can there be any checks and balances when both house of Congress are Republican controlled as is the White House????? eek!

Care to place a wager on that, Eastside?....perhaps that depends on how you define "very few", though....based upon the polls that I have seen lately (as much as they can be believed ) there are a large number of closely contested races which will undoubtedly result in QUITE A FEW Senate seats changing hands come November 2nd -- on BOTH sides of the aisle, I might add.

[ June 27, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

HELL NO I won't be voting for Chimpy. The man has ENDORSED using the Constitution of this country to discriminate against us. While the chance of that actually happening is not good it still tells me where he stands. I'd put my eye out with a screwdriver before I'd pull the lever for that monkey-eared motherf**ker.

A bi-partisan effort? Did you follow Bush trying to appoint lower level judges the last couple years? It was a pure power struggle, not a bi-partisan effor.t

I hope I'm not being lumped in with the 5-6 hardcore liberals, since that's just not me.

I realize that ultimately I won't change the minds of gay Bush supporters. If you are willing to vote for a leader who refuses to let you exercise a fundamental right, no amount of discussion online will change your mind. Rather I care more about the small group of undecided gay folks, or folks who aren't quite so wedded to W (so to speak). I go to law school, and I spend my days identifying the holes of logic and practicality in legal arguments. So debating Bush supporters online only makes my job easier, since undecided or barely decided centrists can see the dialectic for themselves, allowing them to make their own informed decision.

Much of my consternation here stems from studying African-American history. Gay Bush supporters remind me a lot of Booker T. Washington. See, Booker T. was a black nationalist, and unlike a lot of his peers, he was willing to let segregation go unchallenged. Booker T. got a lot of support from rich white philanthropists who liked his ideas of self-reliance and his willingness to accept the racial status quo.

Now Booker T. has my respect, since he had good intentions for black folk. But his stance was problematic because he allowed blacks to remain an underclass in American society. And I feel like gay Bush supporters are doing the same thing. You don't need to vote for Kerry. But I just can't reconcile the idea of actively supporting a man who is willing to codify discrimination with the ideals of universal equality that make America great.