$500 million. You can't eat that much pussy in a month of Sundays... but I can!

Badseed,
Yes, I heard the story about Grover Cleveland opponents heckling him for his love child "Ma, Ma, where's my PA?"
As I recall, the Cleveland supporters replied "Gone to the White House ... Ha, Ha, Ha!"

This quote from Bill Maher just slays me:

"It's nine months before the election and Bush's poll numbers have fallen to the exact level that his father's poll numbers were nine months before he lost to Bill Clinton. Today front runner John Kerry said he's not superstitious, but just to be on the safe side, he's going to start f---ing everything that moves."
—Bill Maher

This one is even better:

"New Rule: If everybody was wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, then somebody has to say, 'My bad.' ... For some reason, the two words this president just can't seem to say are 'sorry' and 'nuclear.' Something is terribly wrong when the only person who has been fired over terrorism is me." —Bill Maher

more here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm

Regards,
Glasweg

PresidentElect.org has updated its electotal projection for the 2004 election. They project, if the election were held when they did their last update (February 10, 2004), Bush would beat Kerry 286-252.

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

However, if Kerry can carry all the red and light red states and pickup one of the light blue states like Ohio or Florida, Kerry can take the election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

One site where you can play with an interactive electoral map is http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

Here are some other interesting February poll numbers:

BUSH OVERALL JOB APPROVAL (Registered voters)

Now
Approve 47%
Disapprove 44%

1/2004
Approve 50%
Disapprove 45%

2/2003
Approve 56%
Disapprove 35%

10/2001
Approve 90
Disapprove 5%

NOVEMBER 2004 VOTE (Registered voters)

George W. Bush 46%
John Kerry 47%

George W. Bush 45%
John Edwards 45%

NOVEMBER 2004 VOTE (Registered voters)

George W. Bush & Dick Cheney 42%
John Kerry & John Edwards 50%

This certainly looks like the Kerry-Edwards people need to get together and make this ticket a reality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/29/opinion/polls/main602884.shtml

I remember someone around here stating a poll that most of the members had a very conservative viewpoint. Its just kind of amazing to me that we are seeing people bringing up points about a Kerry vs Bush and the viewpoint is to take 'Herman the Munster' over 'The Monster'. Ok, just kidding. But I have been listening to John Kerry, and he seems to be so mixed up that he just tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear. And Kerry has a better, even, or slightly worse edge on dubya. Even people like Dennis Cucinich (sp), Al Sharpton, and Howard Dean told the American public what they believed in more than Kerry. Then a guy like Greenspan comes along and opens the wound even wider saying he thinks Social Security needs to be cut down. If you ask me, that put more terror into americans minds than 9/11 ever did. I ask this question, to you, if Greenspan made his social security announcement a few yrs earlier would we have the tax cuts in the manner we have had over the past few years and for that matter, would we even be in iraq? I am far enough away from social security that i can secure myself, but how social is that, and if i fail, is there security for me. We always talk about how we need to make the nation more secure. I just have to laugh. Secure for who? Most of the people this room have the opportunity to vote in on March 2, vote in whatever you feel. Maybe Arnie and Dubya will pull us out of this mess, or is everything fine?

The only poll that means anything is a tracking poll of registered voters.... not someone's determination of a "likely voter". Here is one of the more respected ones:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

What it shows does not bode well for Kerry. Despite months of constant free shots on Bush being covered by the media, he has not been able to stay above Bush for more than 4 days, and he only did that twice since Jan 19th. Once the primary season is over and all of the "landslide" coverage goes away, does anyone see these numbers going up when they couldn't stay up during the primary season? The election in November will no doubt be close though. It's all about the electoral college, and when the real game begins, a liberal is not going to win the red states that Al Gore couldn't win. Several of the blue states have Republican governors too, so that also is a negative for the Dems. Kerry may take New Hamshire away from Bush this time, but New Mexico could go either way too. There are too many toss-up states and it will all depend on turn-out.

The problem for Kerry is that he hasn't been tested by any other candidate since Iowa. Just wait until the ads start showing his flip-flop voting record. I don't think Kerry is a bad man, but I don't respect him as a leader because he has trouble sticking to one position. He's a pander bear just like every Democratic candidate I've ever seen campaign. I don't respect that. Don't promise everybody everything. Take a position, stick with it, and show some conviction. That's what leadership is all about.


Worst case scenario for the Republicans: Kerry wins .... Senate and House stay in Republican control with a probable gain of a seat or two by Rep. in the Senate. The effect on Kerry will be he has to govern as a moderate to get anything through Congress. He will never get a tax increase through Congress.

Worst Case Scenario for the Democrats: Bush wins... Senate and House stay in Rep control with a probable gain of a seat or two in the Senate.



FYI... Zogby also has a good tracking poll, but I don't have the link. The findings are similar though.

It would appear as if the Richard A Clarke book and interview circuit is having some effect on people's mind. This will probably have only short term implications though in the election and these tracking polls. There was a dramatic shift in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll that is listed in the above post by Aldaron.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

BTW, thanks for that site Aldaron. I visit it every day now.

There are also several key battleground states that appear to be in play for both parties. Ohio narrowly went Republican in 2000 and Kerry is now leading in that state. Kerry is also leading by three points in Florida. However, Pennslyvania which went Democrat in 2000 is now in play for Bush as Kerry only leads by a point in that state.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/election_2004.htm

Dem's kind of screwed up choosing Kerry I think. I generally vote Republican even though I don't like the influence the religious right has but I could vote for a Democrat too if I like the guy. But no way could I vote for Kerry. Dem's should have ran a better candidate. Midwest style Dem's would go over allot better with the national electorate.

BTW didnt the Rasmussen poll have Bush winning the popular vote by about 8% just before the election in 2000? I'm not sure how credible there data collection methods are.

JFK was the last Democratic President not from the south...though he was from southern Massachusetts. Last Dem president from the midwest was Harry Truman! Come to think of it, Give 'em hell Harry I believe was the ONLY midwest Dem president in the 20th century.

I think the Dems have themselves a winner in Kerry unless Osama gets captured or blown away in October, and southern man Edwards will make an effective running mate.

One should not estimate the abilities of the Bush re-election team. November is far away, and the world may change two or three times by then.

Yes, Xen, there was a sizable shift today in that tracking poll. I hadn't seen it until you pointed it out.

Bush had been leading for 7 straight days and then BAM! It's a temporary phenomenon though. You will see even larger swings during the conventions later this summer.

The larger problem for Bush is that Kerry is ahead 48% to 44% in Michigan,
45% to 41% in Ohio
and 45% to 44% in Pennsylvania

It's all within the margin of error, but Bush must win at least one of those states to have enough Electoral Votes, and that is assuming he wins Florida.

We could very well end up with Bush winning the popular vote and Kerry winning the electoral vote. I wonder if the partisan Dems will cry that Kerry stole the election if that happens?

The market researcher in me wants to scream. These polls are so far from being statistically correct. Remember when Dean was the front runner. Not only did he not win an election, he didn't come in second except in a few cases. The polls are flawed, and certainly so early in the game.

I believe this election will be decided on three factors, if one presumes that the 2000 election was a close one.

1. People that voted for Gore in 2000 that will vote for Bush in 2004. I have not met anyone that is moving in this direction. Is there anyone out there like this?

2. People that voted for Bush in 2000 that will vote for Kerry in 2004. I have met a handful of people in this category.

3. People that did not vote in 2000. Who will they vote for? My gut says that the closeness of the 2000 election highlights that 'every vote counts' and there will be record voter turnout this year. Records show that the 2000 no shows were primarily young people. Historically speaking, younger people tend to vote democratic.

But I think it is going to be a close one. As far I am concerned, the most important economic indicator is the real/$ rate during the next 12 months.

The election will be decided electorally by a couple of swing states. There is a lot of time between now and November. Enough time for external events or internal implosions to affect the outcome in those states for both candidates.

Speaking of Dean, I actually feel bad for that guy. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a nut and would never have won a general election, but therein lies the problem and the main stream media knew it. I remember being in Rio the day after the Iowa caucus and I had the tv on with the volume low and CNN kept showing Dean giving a speech at a rally. I finally turned it up and he kept yelling "RAHHHHHHHH". Yes, it was funny as shit, but to what end for a "news organization". It started weeks before Iowa though. They systematically went about destroying him and every gaffe he made they amplified, and at the same time did more positive stories on Kerry . It was shameful. The media shouldn't be allowed to "pick" the nominee.

Again, Dean didn't help himself with his erratic behavior, but no one has a sizable lead in the polls for 6 months and then drops off a cliff without the help of the main stream media. (see my comments in "Liberal Bias in the Media" for more of my opinions on that)

NULL

(Message edited by badseed on March 25, 2004)

I think it was one of the editors at the Boston Globe who, the night of the 2000 elections, said (while a microphone was nearby) "I can't believe they're going to elect this idiot". Ever since then, I have felt the same way, as have a lot of people. Gore was a wimpy candidate but could have won the election in a cakewalk if he and his campaign had gotten their shit together.

This year, Kerry has his shit together. And, a lot of people are seriously pissed at Bush, for a variety of reasons. O'Neal threw the first hand grenade with his book back in January, now Dick Clarke with his book this month. Just like Perot running in 1992, primarily to stop Bush I, I think a lot of people are going to step out of the shadows to take a shot at Bush II this time around.

I mean, seriously, it's early March and the incumbant is already running attack ads and on the defensive. That is a sign of real problems in the Bush cabal. Iraq is not going away, worries about the economy are not going away, and issues like ratting out the CIA agent last year, Haliburton, etc etc - these are all small but collectively, is a big bag of shit for Bush and his puppeteers to handle.

So, if you think you've seen biased reporting, just wait for this summer. Almost every picture of George in the Washington Post these days is comical. He either looks constipated or they show a shot of him just looking like a complete idiot. They take 200 photos, and run the one that most makes him look like a doof.

Catacony,

I am surprised that you will admit the Media Bias against Bush.

Gore was not just a wimpy candidate, he was a shitty candidate. He could not even carry his home state. Whats up with that? If you can't carry your home state that you represented for years, what does that say about you?

Bush will probably lose. But it won't have anything to do with John Kerry being a better candidate. John Kerry does not even know what he believes in. Bush will lose because the democratic rage against him is without precedent. He drives them absolutely crazy.

Why wouldn't I admit a liberal bias in the Post? I read every page every day, except for classifieds and whatnot. I read it online when I'm out of town even.

I've never paid a penny for a copy of the Washington Times and probably never will. But, here in the DC area, those are your choices. It's sometimes amazing to see the covers of the two local papers side by side. Same story, but completely different article titles, photo selection, etc. In the Times, they always try and make Bush look like some Roman proconsul rolling into a city he just conquered. In the Post, there is a pic of Bush making a goofy face while picking something out of his tie, or making that constipated-looking smirk he always seems to do when someone asks him a difficult question. Of course, for Bush, a difficult question would be if he would like chicken or beef for dinner, but let's not get into that. It's fucking funny!

Batster makes a good point. I have no respect for any candidate that can't carry his home state. Afterall, those are the people that know the candidate best and they rejected him. It must eat away at Gore every day to know that if he'd just carried Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Anyone from the great state of Mass gets my vote

I agree if your homestate is not behind then that says a lot right there. Bush is killing free speech along with Ashcock. if it wasnt for 9/11 we might not be able to view sites like this and they were considering getting rid of adult entertainment. The Adult entertianment industry gave huge to opponents of Bush.
Bush was a great debater and also if all those wacky polls weren't screwed up we may never had gone to war and we would be looking at another president.
Bush has lost a lot of overseas trust including his "best supporter" Vincente Fox that I am sure was told all kinds of promises before hand and Bush renegged.

I am sure once Bush loses this erection Vincente will be laffing all the way to the border.

Although I hope Bush loses the election, I am far from calling it one way another.

I would guess that it is still going to be a very close election, much like 2000. And there may be MORE problems with the 2004 election given that the Diebold electronic voting machines are quite susceptible to hacking and there is no paper trail – it’s all electronic. I see a nightmare waiting to happen there.

Xenono

I agree with you on that pal!
They just finished an election here with those darn machines and nobody seemed to know how to use them. No i am not talking about the voters i mean the people to overlook them!!!
They had several different malfuctions including battery problems screen shutdowns and more!!!

Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut and went to schools and universities in New England. He did not carry Connecticut in 2000.

Cat, that's weak. Bush is a Texan. Everybody knows that. In fact, isn't that one of the things he's made fun of for?

Catacony,

Bush may have been Born in New Haven. But he never represented Connecticut in Congress or the Senate. Thats all Al Gore ever did.

John McCain is not from Arizona. He is a carpet bagger. He moved to Arizona specifically to run for Office. But every one now calls him "the Senator from Arizona". Every one identifies Bush with Texas. And Bush carried Texas handily.

If a politician can not win in his home state and protect his political power base, that says a lot.

Also a second sign of Gores lameness as a politician was his inabilty to ride Clintons coattails. Wasn't Clinton supposedly the best shit in 20 years. Gore should have won big thus negating Floridas problems. But he did not.

I believe Bush will lose because there is just so much rage and hate and bias against him. On top of that he is not a very strong candidate. But Kerry is a poor candidate also. With all the Bush hate out there Kerry should win big. He wont. He will win by a slim, slim margin. Why, because he is a shitty candidate.

Sorry Milky. I don't care if he is from Masachusets. He is to French for me.

Batster,

I actually agree with you, I was just throwing that out there as a point, to see reactions.

Everyone says it was Florida, but Gore lost three, maybe four states he absolutely should have won.

Tennessee - no excuse there. Gore fucked up.
West Virginia - Gore's tree hugging and anti-gun stance killed him.
Arkansas - Gore fucked up again by not allowing Clinton to help him. Arkansas is the one southern state (Florida excluded as being "southern" with all of the migration and immigration from elsewhere) that Democrats are still fairly strong in.
New Hampshire - The only New England/Mid-Atlantic state not solidly Democrat or at least anti-conservative on the national level.

If Gore had fucked up less (though still allowing for ample fucked-upness) he would have won.

I was not a big Gore supporter. I voted for him because I thought he was most qualified and would have done a good job. I didn't especially like him, but I did not dislike him one bit.

I was hoping that McCain would have beaten Bush in the primaries. I think McCain would have beaten Gore more easily, since he would have gotten much more of the moderate crowd than Bush did.

I still think that Kerry will win this year. Bush has simply alienated to many people. However, I will make one change to my recommendation at this point: Kerry should pick Clark for the VP slot, which will most likely win him Arkansas. I don't think that Edwards will win North Carolina for Kerry, and all Kerry really needs is one Southern state to carry the day. I think Clark can bring Arkansas, but I don't think Edwards can swing North Carolina. Edwards should forget about "retiring" from the Senate and run again, he'll help the Democrats more by keeping his Senate seat than by running as VP.

I predict that the electoral map will be about the same this year as in 2004, but with maybe Florida and Ohio going Democratic. I honestly don't think Bush will pick up any states, except maybe New Mexico.

Contrary to popular belief, VP choices don't win you states. I have heard political pros over and over again reiterate that during the last couple of months since Kerry emerged.

The last time it was pivitol, in a close race, was in 1960. LBJ won Texas for Kennedy - Kennedy would have most likely lost without LBJ.

You have to be in a close race, with a number of states right on the edge. Clark would probably tip Arkansas, and Graham would probably tip Florida. I think it will boil down to which state Kerry thinks he'll need come November.

Oh yeah, the biggest clusterfuck that Gore did - teaming up with Lieberman. Fucking waste. They probably lost a million votes because of concerns of having a Jewish VP, not that anyone ever wants to admit it.

Hey, Lieberman won Connecticut for Gore!

Anyway, I still think Bush will win, because money talks in politics. Also, Kerry has been in public life many years, and probably said many stupid things. Finally, Bush will take Bin Ladin's body out of the freezer in the months just before the election.

Bush always talks about Kerry's 20 years of national public record, but he doesn't seem to realize his three years of national public record.

I voted for my former girl-friend to be president in 2000. However, she was born in Trinidad and Tobago. My vice precidential selection was Gibby Haynes, singer for the Butthole Surfers.

Since I live in a "swing state" - Pennsylvania, we're already getting bombarded with campaign ads. Heard a funny Bush plug on the radio this morning.. after the usual "Paid for by Huge Corrupt Corporations for Bush" disclaimers, there was an actor claiming to be a Boston Cop, and he had a really heavy, "Pahk ma Cah in Hahvahd Yahd", type accent. After he's done saying he's a cop, he says "and ya know, I think your accent is funny too". Hah, ha, just a regular guy, we can believe and trust him, standard advertising technique. Then he spouts the usual bullshit about Kerry's 350 tax increase votes, and $900 billion in planned tax hikes "in his first 100 days". And he's going to increase taxes on seniors "who have worked hard all their lives". Ends up with the "cop" saying a vote for Kerry is a vote for higher taxes or something like that.

Gotta love it! Can't the Bushies come up with anything better than the old Repub chesnut of "Dems raise taxes"? And the fake numbers they are throwing out (350 tax hikes! 900 billion - read slate.com if you want details about how phony this is), another ancient tactic. BTW, who's seen "The Manchurian Candidate", great movie, remember "57 communists!", even more ironic now that this year's election is Halliburton vs. Heinz. The fake cop was a nice touch, classic marketing. Do "average Joe" Americans actually buy this shit? It scares the hell out of me to suspect that they do. And Dem ads aren't much better.... The line between political discourse and propaganda has blurred into non-existence, and all parties are to blame, including us complacent dummies for voting for them.

However, specifically in the case of Karl Rove, he reminds me of "Goebbels Lite".... all the same mass appeal manipulation techniques, without the swatikas and anti-semitism (although swarthy Arab-looking men have already appeared in the early campaign ads). Truly frightening.

BS


BTW, before I get flamed, no I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, as some of the Left was doing last year. Ridiculous. Hitler was a vegetarian, Bush is not. Hitler was a combat war veteran, Bush isn't, etc., etc. The differences are obvious.

Hitler only had one testical too. He lost one in WWI.

Bush has no balls

Cato:

I don't even want to KNWO how you know or care about Hitler's 'nads. Some questions are best left unasked....

BS

Badseed,

We finally agree on something. I find Karl Rove a little scary.

Catacony,

I doubt Bush will pick up New Mexico. But I also doubt that Kerry would win Arkansas even with Calrk on the ticket. Its going to be another nail biter. But Kerry will win, because the dems will have a better get out the vote campaign for their base ( Get rid of Bush). Bush is going to have a weak base because he has been inconsistent on everyhting except terrorism.

I know you guys will all be happy. I am not so sure I will. I am not a huge Bush fan, but I worry
about a Kerry presidency. I think I will remain an expatriate a few more years if he wins ( al la Alec Baldwin vowing to move to France if Bush won)

Hee hee.

Aldaron for President!

I'm tapping the Cigar Smoking Pimp as my running mate. Our convention will be held at Luomo next month.

Aldaron:

What is your platform? Hopefully it centers on legalized, government-sponsored prostitution and heavy importation of garotas... I will defintely give a Aldaron/Don ticket some serious consideration!

BS

My first priority will be to eliminate the need for visas for attractive Brasiladas.

That leads to my second priority which is to import Brasiladas to provide training to American girls to teach them a new attitude and how to fuck.

My third priority will be to elimate 50/50 divorce laws and push for a "Man Comes First" (literallly) amendment to the Constitution

Fourth, I will jettison the five day work week and roll it back to 3 days with a 1/2 Thursday.

Lastly, I will renew ties with Cuba to allow my pervert friends Sandman and Don Gringo to go there at will as long as they bring my VP back some Cuban cigars.

You got my vote! ;-)

BS

Now you're talking politics, Aldaron!

Kerry opens up his biggest lead ever on Bush.

I will temper my comments by acknowledging it is only April, but Kerry now leads Bush 48% to 42%.

"Today's result marks a nine-point net gain for Kerry since last Friday morning. That change is especially dramatic because Friday's strong job creation report was expected by many to boost the President's numbers."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Bush's job approval is now at its lowest in 2004 at 49%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

You'll excuse me for thinking that Rasmssen pulls those numbers from out of their butts. It's nice to see a daily rolling poll, but the fact that most people who hear a robot voice on the phone imemdiately hang up SERIOUSLY skews these results. Anyway, I reserve judgement untill the "major" polls come out and I can compare them. Of course, the BEST poll is the one they do on Nov 2 (give or take a few buterfly ballots and suspicious eletronic ballot boxes).

BS

Another good site is http://www.pollingreport.com/

They post polling reports daily or when they become available from a variety of sources.

We often hear the rhetorical question regarding who Osama bin Laden would vote for, and Republicans like to say Kerry. I strongly disagree.

I don't think Bush could have done a more thorough job of squandering world sympathy after 9/11, alienating the US from our traditional allies, weakening US intelligence and diplomatic credibility, and creating a new breed of radical Muslims drawn to a terrorist cause. Osama would say that the US is intent on occupying an Arab country to rob them of their oil. With the WMD claims in shambles and a shallow alliance that neglected UN authority on the pretext of an imminent threat that never existed, Bush appears to much of the world to be making that true.

However, the election of Kerry could offer an optimistic resolution of a stronger international alliance and further authority for the U.N., weakening the perception of the occupation as a U.S. effort and transforming it into an international coalition which could more effectively combat terrorism. The Bush presidency could be viewed as a hiccup in the history of US foreign policy where the American people were misled into a flawed doctrine of pre-emptive war by greedy and short sighted energy moguls.

But the US is still #1 and the strongest, so I'm sure Osama would support the re-election of a man who would continue the trend of alienating the US from the world and drawing young psychotic men to Osama's cause.

Osama says: "4 more of Bush and Dick!"

P.S. I disagree with Explorer on a number of things, but on a point above I'll say he's spot on. "money talks in politics" Unfortunately, there are way too many people voting based on TV commericals. Coming soon...d'Art on The Liberal Media Bias

Xenon: Cool! Thanks for the link.

OK, I'll admit it, I'm a news junkie.....

BS

D'art,

What you've written is why I believe that 9/11 might not have happened at all if Gore was president. Reps like to say "what would Gore have done" and my argument has always been he may not have had to do anything. 9/11 was step one of many, and unfortunately I think a lot of Al Queda's short-term goals have been achieved. If you're a smart terrorist and game out your theories, what the US has done since 9/11 is the most obvious outcome. Invading Iraq, the sky-is-falling domestic reactions (airlines, search and seizure, etc), unilateral movements, it's so obvious and unfortunate.

It's like feeding a few shots of liquor to a drunk - you pretty much know how it's going to turn out before you pour the first drink.

Osama is an equal opportunity terrorist, he would have gone after Gore, and he will go after Kerry. On the other hand, Bush decided to deploy 134,000 troops in Iraq rather than the border of Afganistand and Pakistan to look for Osama, so maybe Osama likes George.

Nothing stirs up Americans' sense of pride more than the classic and highly effective buzzwords that relate to America's founding and its political system. We're all familiar with them as they are continually shoved down our throats and flashed before our eyes on an hourly basis throughout the vast wasteland that is our culture's infotainment onslaught: freedom, equality, liberty, justice, God, independence, struggle, blah, blah, blah.

But perhaps what puffs up Americans' chests more than anything else is a belief in their country's political system, democracy, and its cornerstone, voting.
The very concept of voting is revered; we are accosted by believers in the democratic process not to shun our privilege of voting. We are reminded that many don't enjoy such a boon in their countries and we should consider ourselves lucky.

We read stories about nations holding their first elections in x number of years. Such reports are usually accompanied by a photo of a proud hand dropping a magic ballot into a slotted box top. This typifies the heralded "democratic process."

However, we should ask two questions.

How important is voting really?

Voting is only a part of the democratic process and a very small part at that. We're often told, "If you don't vote then you can't complain," as if all the grievances in the world are solved or addressed by such a process. But, perhaps, we should say, "If you don't complain, you can't vote."

"Complaining" is far more democratic than voting. It is this very process of "complaint" or "dissent" that is the lifeblood of any person making claims to democracy.

I get a kick out of people who don't have a political thought in their heads ever, but go out and vote on Election Day and think they're champions of the system, keeping the principles of the forefathers alive. Yet this same person does not study history (whether it be local, global, past, or present), could not discuss any topic or issue of importance beyond a 7th grade level (the result of reading Newsweek), does not engage in debate or discourse, and has no interest in "rocking the boat."

I have a friend who's an elementary school teacher and is the embodiment of what a citizen living in a theoretical democracy should be. He is a passionate student of history and politics, constantly expanding horizons and engaged in personal research. He challenges people to back up what they say and genuinely asks them, "Why?" He stimulates his students with "fringe" or "controversial" material (challenging mainstream doctrine) and tirelessly attempts to induce original thought in all those he meets.

However, he does not vote.

But the question begs to be asked, who is more vital to the democratic process: someone who robotically reports to polling stations to make uninformed decisions on a punch card and then goes back to life as usual, or someone who demands participation and thought beyond a symbolic gesture?

What are we voting for?

Just because we are presented with choices does not mean we really have a choice. Who chooses the choices we choose from? What can we do if we don't like the choices?

Americans trudge to the polls proudly each election and inevitably vote for the "lesser of two evils." Candidates are weeded out from a gaggle of wealthy, former/current businessmen who are now exchanging the corporate world for the governmental one, a shift that is quite natural considering that the government is a business itself intimately linked with the largest corporations on the planet, who along with various government institutions determine the health of the economy and therefore the mood and well-being of the general population.

The candidates are mere actors who spend most of their time reciting platitudes from history's tired list, insulting one another's character, and making promises that are literally impossible to keep. Behind the scenes, behind the smoke and mirrors, they comprise the unified ruling class. Where they disagree is where the party lines are drawn.

Whether we vote Democrat or Republican, we are voting for those beholden to free market capitalism. Globalization and its bodyguard, the U.S. military, win every election.

By Matthew Riemer

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: Please email at mriemer@YellowTimes.org.

Here is a link to a web site that Mr. Kerry has sued to try and shut down because he does'nt want his past actions coming back to haunt him. http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

On the topic of who Al Qaeda would prefer in the election, Kerry or Bush, here is a really good article from Pakistan that outlines the reasons why Bush is probably their choice. Fascinating read if you ask me. I agree with the points the author makes.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-4-2004_pg3_4

Some highlights:

1. He will roll back American unilateralism and seek more international cooperation from Europe, South Asia, Middle East and the UN. Instead of a coalition of the coerced, Kerry will seek a truly international coalition. Coalitions built through a multilateral process will present fewer fissures in the anti-terror campaign for Al Qaeda to exploit.

3. Much of soft anti-Americanism worldwide is a result of anti-Bushism. Regardless of what Americans think, most of the world finds President Bush uncouth, obnoxious, arrogant, crude and a bully. His defeat itself will reduce anti-Americanism globally and will increase American prospects for victory in this war on terror.

Will Al Qaeda be happy with these developments? I doubt it. Anti-Bushism has helped them divide the world and the growing anger in the Muslim world as a result of George Bush’s policies has helped them gain recruits, clones and support. If Bush loses in November they will lose an important asset. Al Qaeda will become the sole target of US energies and surely that must be a disturbing thought to even those who relish the idea of dying while fighting America.

It is in Al Qaeda’s interest that President Bush stays in the White House. Thus at the moment they are anti-American but Pro-Bush. Come November they will vote for Bush. How you may ask?

Fear is the key. If the American voters feel reasonably secure on the terrorism issue then they will focus on economy, unemployment and on cultural issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

If at the time of the elections the priorities of American voters are:

(1) Economy, (2) Culture, and then (3) Security, or

(1)Economy, (2) Security and (3) Culture, John Kerry will probably win.

However if by November the voter is either thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Culture and then (3) Economy, Bush will win with a landslide and if the voter is thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Economy and (3) Culture, Bush may win narrowly.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-4-2004_pg3_4