Toggle sidebar

What will be the deciding issue in this election?

B

Bowens

BamaNation Citizen
Sep 2, 2001
85
0
0
Summerville,Ga
Is it Iraq? Economy? Healthcare? Leadership? Integrity? Partisanship?

I think the President did a good job of stealing the Iraq thunder by transferring power early. Granted, it was only 24 hours early. Now, the "Iraq Policy" the opponents are harping on is non-existant because Iraq rules itself....with our help. Agree or disagree?

Also, the economic numbers continue to climb and inflation is virtually non-existant. Of course there are area's of the country that are not doing as well as others (Ohio). I recall when President
Clinton was in office I suffered through 2 of my most hardest financial situations I've ever faced. Economy is on the upswing as a whole. Agree or disagree?

Lastly, let's talk healthcare. President Bush passed sweeping change to the elderly prescription drug thingy. I recall Democrats for years wanting to do this but never got it done. I don't necessarily agree with it but it shows the President's comassion I think and willingness to reach out across party lines to do what is right. Agree or disagree?
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Is it Iraq? Economy? Healthcare? Leadership? Integrity? Partisanship?</font>
Click to expand...

All of the above, and pretty much in the order you list them when it comes to the importance of each one. I have seen lots of people arguing that your vote should be based on Iraq or the economy (or whatever). The truth is that this election has so many important issues that it's going to be a complex mix of things in the minds of your average undecided voter.

Personally, I'd like to see more of a national discussion about healthcare. It's hardly surprising to see that getting downplayed by the other things in the headlines today, but of the really important issues out there it's the one getting far less media time than it should. I'd like to see more about the plans the major candidates have.
 
I would like to believe that the issues will decide this race but I have seen no evidence that Americans are taking the time to educate themselves on the issues. As for the candidates, both sides are taking swipes at their opponent. Neither has even made an attempt to define their position as relates to a run for office and how it differs from their opponent.

In the end, propaganda and hatred will decide the race, not the issues - or even the candidates themselves...
 
ed,
you tend to lose credibility when you make statements like that. It was proven by several different independent vote counts that even with the standards that Gore wanted, Bush still would have won the election.
 
Having been President for 4 years most of us are well aware of Bush's positions and how they are different from Kerry's. It's Kerry that's the big question mark. The few things he has said he would do, like turn Iraq over to the UN, are all bad. You could argue that Bush should espouse upon what he plans to accomplish in the next 4 years but it's virtually always the undecided 20% that decide the outcome and I think it's often the rhetorical, propaganda filled, attack your opponent adds that swing their votes one way or another. If it came down to just the issues, most (not all) of that 20% would not be undecided.

As a conservative, I think Leadership, Experience, Knowledge, Integrity, and Economy are the most important. I don't list Iraq, or more specifically the war on terror, because the way it is handled is a product of leadership experience, knowledge, and integrity, none of which Kerry has convinced me has. I think leadership is important to regain respect for the office of the President of the USA and subsequently the country herself, both of which were seriously tarnished by 8 years of a Jerry Springeresque presidency. The liberals either don't place importance on these things or define them drastically different, so it's tough to make a list of things that will decide who our next president is. It's different for each group.

Kerry having a chance depends on the number of his supporters that will actually get out and vote, and getting the majority of the undecided vote. There are lots of people that are anti-Bush but not many that are pro-Kerry. Even after a week and a half in liberal places like Taos and Aspen, I saw no displays of support for Kerry. I think most everyone that voted for Bush the first time will vote for him again so if the liberals don't turn out in record numbers and don't ignore candidates like Nader, Kerry has little chance.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mamacalled:
ed,
you tend to lose credibility when you make statements like that. It was proven by several different independent vote counts that even with the standards that Gore wanted, Bush still would have won the election. </font>
Click to expand...

Perhaps the vote wasn't 5-4 then? Gore won the popular vote by a large margin and would have won the election if not for the intervention of the Supreme Court. If the 5-4 vote had gone the other way, would it have been better for you? Gore would be President then regardless of any other standards involved. The Court decided by one vote. Also don't forget about the thousands of voters in Florida who were disenfranchised and their votes were not counted. Thousands were not even allowed to cast a ballot due to the failures of the Florida Department of State. (Katherine Harris the head of that Department was Bush's campaign manager in Florida was she not?) If those votes had been counted, the election would have had a different outcome. Hopefully the days of hanging chads (for Democratic votes) are over in that state.



[This message has been edited by ed4tide4u2 (edited 06-28-2004).]
 
ed,
I believe the Supreme Court vote was for ending the recounts, all of which came back favoring Bush.


NYBamafan,

Opinions are not wrong. I posted my opinion based on my beliefs, people I know, people I have talked to, posts I have read on various internet message boards, radio talk show callers, and articles. You may not agree, but by definition opinions are not wrong.

What is Kerry's vision? It has been asked on here several times and I have to see it. The few times Kerry himself has mentioned anything it was either false, contradictory, unclear, potentially disastrous, or any combination of the above. We've heard as much or more from Al Gore and Kerry's daughter than from Kerry himself.

America does not need to be convinced. I don't need to be, nor do many other posters on here, so your statement is already incorrect (unless we somehow do not compose part of America). Most conservatives will vote for Bush, most Liberals will vote for Kerry or Nader. The undecided will vote based on how Bush's vision is different than Kerry's mythical vision, some of the undecided will vote based on who has the most convincing ads, some of the undecided will vote simply on who they like and/or who looks more like a President, and some of the undecided will vote third party. There is no reason to think this election will be any different than any others in recent history. The only group that needs to be convinced of anything is the undecided, hence the name.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ed4tide4u2:
Perhaps the vote wasn't 5-4 then? Gore won the popular vote by a large margin and would have won the election if not for the intervention of the Supreme Court. If the 5-4 vote had gone the other way, would it have been better for you? Gore would be President then regardless of any other standards involved. The Court decided by one vote. Also don't forget about the thousands of voters in Florida who were disenfranchised and their votes were not counted. Thousands were not even allowed to cast a ballot due to the failures of the Florida Department of State. (Katherine Harris the head of that Department was Bush's campaign manager in Florida was she not?) If those votes had been counted, the election would have had a different outcome. Hopefully the days of hanging chads (for Democratic votes) are over in that state.

[This message has been edited by ed4tide4u2 (edited 06-28-2004).]</font>
Click to expand...

Ed4tide4u2,

If you recall, the Florida legislature was preparing to certify the Republican Electors regardless of the outcome of a recount. If two different slates of electors had arrived in the House of Representatives, the Congress would have determined which electors to accept from Florida. This has happened before in close presidental elections. The Republican controlled House would have chosen the Republican electors, and Bush would still have been President.
 
Ed,
again, all recounts including the recounts that used the guidelines that Gore wanted showed that Bush would have won regardless. The Miami Herald held an independent count of votes using the guidelines that Gore's team wanted and Gore still lost. You also fail to mention the votes of our military men that the Demstried to throw out. They knew that those votes would be heavily Republican so they made sure that they wouldn't be counted.
Illinois had even more votes that were thrown out but I didn't see the Gore team running to hold a recount there. Why, if they really wanted an honest count?
Here is a link regarding the election from a non-partisan organization who investigated the balloting.
http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue20/am19.htm

[This message has been edited by Mamacalled (edited 06-28-2004).]
 
Ed,

You conveniently forgot to mention all the votes Bush lost in the Florida panhandle when the media jumped the gun and declared Bush the winner before the polls in the panhandle closed. It was reported that voters standing in line left the polling places en masse thinking their votes wouldn't have mattered. The Florida panhandle is strongly GOP.

I'm surprised that you thought you could get away with spreading bogus information as others have already pointed out to you.
 
TT,

If you were stating an opinion, I offer my apologies. You posted as though making a statement of fact. I, for one, have no idea what Bush has planned for the next 4 years. Do you? If so, where did you get your information. I have searched long and hard and still have seen nothing.

BTW, I am not a Democrat or a liberal. I simply feel that neither candidate has even made an attempt to define an agenda for our country's future.
 
Thanks all, I enjoy a good debate without a lot of heated rhetoric. I understand people are passionate about politics. I am a devoted Christian and for the most part vote conservative. As a former Marine, I know and can understand what these young men are going through being away from home. I also see the left leading us toward failure in the war on terror. We face an enemy that is willing to kill himself and we actually have people in this country who think it is wrong for us to kill the enemy. Our enemy is willing to die and we aren't willing to kill him....who do you think will win that war? Also, remember this, to win a war, you must destroy the enemies WILLINGNESS to wage war. That's what we did in WWI and WWII and all the way back to the Indian wars. Once the willingness to fight is destroyed the enemy will crumble soon after. Winning of the hearts and minds DOES NOT WORK. This is the only area I disagree with President Bush on. I feel he has mishandled the war on terror after Iraq was liberated our sights should have been turned toward Syria and Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back