"The People's Voice Web Site"
The General Public gave this Information. Americans have the right to have a voice and that's why this site was put together. Hear what the average Americans have to say about the upcoming Election. They are the "People Who Care About America."
"During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas......Each time a person was sentenced to death, Bush received from his legal counsel a document summarizing the facts of the case....based on this information Bush allowed the execution to proceed in all cases but one. The first fifty-seven of these summaries were prepared by Gonzales, a Harvard-educated lawyer who went on to become the Texas secretary of state and a justice on the Texas supreme court. He is now the White House counsel.
Comment by Lysa
so your against anything to hurt people, then how can you back george "put them in the chair gov." bush? you know the guy who has put more people in the chair then ANYONE? the guy who ties to private prisons, so prison membership is also on the rise everywhere the guy goes. do a net search for " george bush private prisons" see what you get, right. he has put people to death that were thought to be not guilty. read up on it. research, use the force. i dont need someones morals forced upon me, i dont need anyone's, oh your a sinner so i'm better.if we believe we believe, if we dont, to bad for us.you say bomb the terrorist, but i bet your all for someone blowing up an abortion clinic huh? you see, before abortion was legal, girls would use coat hangers, and risk death to themself as well as the kid, as sure as i am about how you would like to go back to those days, i would rather not.just like the war on drugs(that gets more funding with each republican in office)can you name one person(regular guy) that is flying his happy but to the middle east and picking up tons of heroin and bringing it back here?
Comment by Doug in Indiana
Hi guys, I took some time off,as rather than try to "educate" you on the issues and the reason "W can't be allowed to stay in ofice for another term,I've been hanging with the Kerry gang,as I needed to connect and get some good strokes .Whew,one can only get beat up so long!At least we kerries,and deanies ALL agree.."flame the shrub"! If the economy isn't sustainable the loyaly of these fans is something else..and so are you!
Comment by Patti Ferschke
This war was planned and executed for the love of power and greed. This war was a go with Rumsfeld and the neocons with or without Bush. They tried to talk Clinton in to it, and succeeded in haveing him bomb Iraq. But Clinton didn't really want a war.(besides he was tied up with Monica at the time) As for the FAA, a lot of the things that are happening now, should of happened a long time ago. The airlines are a lot to blame for this because they didn't want to spend for security. I known a little about the FAA due the fact I own an airplane. When I go to the airport I now have a security pass to open the gate. It wasn't like that before. I like the security pass because only owners and pilot have access to the aircraft. This is good. I really wish Jennifer that you would take a look at The Project For The New American Century. Maybe study it a short while and think about what other have to say here. If you have the facts and still like Bush, so be it. On the pro choice issue I'm not real well informed. I decided that women should make that decision. Women should also be more invovled in national economic issues, if not in total control. Men have less of a security concern, where as women naturally are much better at properly useing resources. This isn't a fact but I'll bet 90% of the successful households in America are run by women. The irony is, important decision are made by men in smoke filled rooms. What I see now is a group of guys (neocons) spending your childerns futures down the drain. Respectfully,
Comment by Charles in Montana
I will agree with you that Iraq is better off without Saddam, but I don't feel like it should be America's job to liberate those people. If they wanted to be liberated they probably could have did it for themselves, and why does America have to be the Dream Police of the World? Why can't we just live quite lives and stay out of war. I really like what Bush did to try to end the fighting between Israel and Palestine, but I still don't want America to turn out to be the Dream Police in that confrontation either, like we are in Lybia right now. Bush is spreading our military too thin. America's economy is broke. How can you possibly think we need to give Bush 4 more years?
Comment by Ann Stewart
I understand that war is evil, but I think Bush really believed Iraq was a threat. Saddam has a history of tormenting and killing his own people. He needed to be taken out to libarate those tormented people in the country of Iraq. They were suffering terribaly because of Saddam's rule. They are much better off without him controling them now. Since Bush has done this Saddam and Osoma have no more power. Look at all the time al-queta tried to bomb American targets before Bush came in the the Presidency. Now Al-queta is crippled. That haven't got any resources to fight now. That's all because of President Bush. He took them out of power, by taking away thier funding and destroying thier network.
Comment by Jennifer
Iraq had no air force and no weapons capable of firing more than a couple hundred miles, and no terrorist connections to Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia (our ally) by comparison has strong connections to Al Qaeda. While Bush focused on Iraq and Hussein he took the pressure off Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Of the 19 hijackers who attacked the trade towers not one was Iraqi. 15 were Saudi Arabians. But because of financial and business connections that American oil companies have with the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia we ignore their sponsorship of terrorism at our own peril, while attacking Iraq who we stood little to nothing to gain security-wise by attacking. This is what disturbs me about our present policy. In my opinion, the Bush administration is letting financial and political interests trump security interests. I, of course, realize that others see things differently and I respect that you have a different opinion that is more favorable towards Bush's foreign policy.
Comment by Wayne in Missouri
The English public seems to much better informed than the American public. Tony Blair is under seige from his own people. The BBC, Guardian, Independent, and other news sources report the truth and don't allow the government to influence their reports. Mr. Blair suffer an all time low approval of 24%. An inquiry begining yesterday is bringing out the false nature of the intelligence used against Iraq. The famous dodgy dossier was writen seven months before being released to the public to stir fear through out Britian. The now deceased scientist Mr. Kelly tried to stop Blair from useing this info. Mr. Kelly was down played as a low level offical to the media one month ago. The inquiry has now brought out that he was consulted by the government as the expert in his field. What he was telling the BBC was all true. Blair gets closer to the edge every day. After Blairs demise Bush will suffer the fate. Day by day Americans are becoming better informed. They don't get their news from Fox or CNN. Americans are coming out of the woodwork. They are now studing the issues, Engaging in constructive debates such as this one, signing up to vote like never before and sending a bliztkreig (lighting war)of phone calls, letters and email to their representitives. Bush has a limited time left in the limelight then fades into history as the worst president our nation has ever had.
Comment by Charles in Montana
I agree all of the democratic candidates are pro choice, even Kucinich siding on that side of the fence after decades of anti-choice. Abortion is and will be for a long time a hot button issue. I think just about all of us in the anti-Bush group could come up with a gazillion reasons why Bush is a terrible leader, horrible for this country, and damaging for the global community. This will always be countered with short lists of why he is good by loyalists. It's a good example of the differences between the "two" sides. Hard right wingers focus on a small core of issues. The left and center see Lots of issues.Or to put in a different perspective say you have a hundred people evenly divided into the two "types" Fifty people talking about three issues, staying on message about just the three issues and ignoring anything outside of those three issues. Fifty people talking about fifty issues all at once diluting the message. It stands to reason that the first group looks stronger, comes across as dense. So for Bush promoting pro-life vendettas, my reply is Church and State as this country was founded Must remain separated. Religion does not belong in Government. That to me is where the core lies. The core of those that are anti-choice are religious. Abortion is an emotional and spiritual issue. The government has no business telling people what to choose emotionally or spiritually. As to the argument that abortion is murder, it's one that is hotly debated. After a certain point in a woman's pregnancy this could be true, but to say that it is true at all stages is opinion not based on scientific fact. A group of cells are not viable outside the woman's body on their own ability. That is a fact, it is not murder. Women miscarry all the time. Is that considered murder by their standards?Again and again Church and State must be separate as dictated by the founding fathers. For good reason too. I would ask you to make a list, do the research on countries that are ruled with a heavy religious tone and those that are not. Which have better living standards? Where is life more peaceful? More productive? More conducive to spiritual growth for all?Two examples of extremes: Sweden & Nigeria
Comment by Lysa
The anti-Dean statements re: McGovern already sound stale and tired. How interesting that Meyerson first brings the issue up to pillory Dean (he can't win because he's like McGovern) and then tears him down for the exact opposite reason (he's a pale imitiation of McGovern). This kind of rhetorical acrobatics is usually the province of GOP fanantics, but it's a tactic increasingly utilized by Democrats who cling pointlessly to Clinton's now-mythical "third way." Politics has changed so much since 2000, with 9/11, Iraq, and the PNAC revolution. Being a centrist Democrat in 2003 is a lot like being a member of the Bull Moose or Know-Nothing Party-- a quaint, useless, and hopelessly out of date classification. The lines have been drawn, and such candidates occupy a no-man's land. Also, Meyerson's comment about Dem losses via liberal defections was telling, but it contained one glaring omission-- Gore lost in 2000 because the left went to Nader (only 3%, but it would have swung the election). Pretending that centrist politics (aka the way of Lieberman) is the Democrats' best bet is dangerous and misguided. Giving Dean a chance to prove himself and listening to the facts about his governorship will lead to a far more successful campaign in 2004; his fiscal conservatism and emphasis on states' rights appeals to moderates and civil libertarians, while his unflinching criticism of the Bush Admin. furiously rallies the traditional base. Watch it happen.
Comment by John in AZ
California has gone nuts!!! Gary Coleman vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger. I sure hope we get to see that debate. "What'cha talking about Arnold?" Is it really fair to have a recall of this nature with only a simple majority needed? Besides, if the people of California elected him in the first place then they should suffer the consequences. It would serve as a valuable lesson for Californians. I bet a lot of the people who voted for the recall are the same people who didn't make it to the original vote- the one that should matter. I'm tired of hearing apathetic people complain about the government and elected officials. P.S. Does Gary Coleman advocate legalizing marijuana for medicinal uses?
Comment by Michael Bohannon
you know, when i first came here in 1990, i was fascinated by the democratic process and ever since then i am still fascinated by it, although personal attacks on character were very vicious during the last two election cycles. i too like vanessa, used to support bush, but now, i dont think i can support his policies as everyday there is word of an american soldier dying and people losing jobs only because their firms do business with other countries where labor is cheap. today's remarks where he siad that progress was being made me question how long was it going to take for him to realize that progress is not going to take place in the long run at all.
Comment by Sindhu Kumar
Osama Bin Laden, Sadam Hussien, The weaons of mass destuction, are all hidden in Syria. What to you think? Should we attack? Or should we like civilized human being check this story out and have all the facts before we destroy another innocent people and country. As proven by resent history Bush will attack without the evidence. Do you want an evil like that to run this world? You better hope Germany does't have anything the neocons think is of inportance to their empire building. They will be at the Brandenburg Gate before you can say Iraq.
Comment by Charles in Montana
it's probably true that the media in California would be talking more about Dean if not for the recall, but I'm sure the other candidates are suffering equally from lack of media coverage there. This might even be a good thing for Dean, because it gives lets him get out HIS message before the media has a chance to misrepresent him as being too liberal or not being electable. I know that a lot of the meetups in California on Wednesday were very well attended, and that Dean has a great base of supporters there - I've seen some of them on the blog talk about their plans to flyer and spread the word about him at events related to the recall, where there will be a lot of politically active people. That said, if Schwarzenegger or another Republican is actually elected governor, it raises concerns about the handling of the general election. California has a huge number of electoral votes, and coupled with its new voting technology, which some people think is vulnerable to fraud, it is absolutely essential that the election be handled fairly. The governor is very influential on how such proceedings are handled, as we saw in Florida in 2000. I am reluctant to suggest than any California Republicans would stoop to that level, but it's something to keep in mind. A Democrat would also be able to help the nominee's campaign. I don't think this is an issue just for Dean, I think it is relevant to al lthe Democratic campaigns.
Comment by Alison Brown
Just to add a belated two cents worth: I don't like falling anywhere in the political spectrum. I think most people believe that we need an economy that has a robust, business-driven engine and a strong military (including intelligence and terrorist-interdiction capabilties) to protect us from our numerous adversaries. These necessities are those that are most breathlessly promoted by the Republican Party. Conversly, most of us agree that we need a strong economic middle class and a social safety net that addresses abject poverty in this country for those who are, sometimes through little more than genetic predisposition or just bad luck, factored out of the free market opportunity in this country. We can recall the horrors of the industrial age when we consider John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and other foreboding tales. The Democrats, at least in their rhetoric, seem to be more aware of these types of issues.
In the political arena, when you consider all these concerns that the electorate should have, it makes it difficult to place one clear-cut candidate over the rest. The electorate generally seems to favor the moderate candidate that considers these issues and attempts to be an advocate for each of them. The wild card in presidential politics is where the candidates come down on the social or moral issues, such as abortion, civil rights for minorities and majorities, the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, religious freedoms, and other such issues. I believe an ardent minority actually use these issues as litmus tests that override the primary issues to most Americans mentioned above.
Factoring in all these considerations with an eye toward 2004, I believe that President Bush is in a strong positions to recapture the presidency. However, he is not in an unassailable position. I believe the president is perceived and generally recognized as strong on national security with his well-publicized strategy of terrorist interdiction that was formulated (certainly with his crack team of advisors involved in policy decisions)after September 11th. Most Americans, including most Democrats, are generally supportive of the president's efforts, and if he does reign in much of the potential for terrorism against America, he will likely establish a legacy for that one paramount accomplishment. Where the president is vulnerable, just like his dad, is on the economy, and the media is very aware of this Achilles heel. So far the so-called economic recovery has been a jobless one, with unemployment rates on the rise. The stock market may rebound, but a recovery that doesn't provide employment opportunities for those who have been displaced by the most recent recession is not one that will cause the electorate to cast ballots for George W. with any enthusiasm. Here is where candidates like Howard Dean and Dick Gephart can challenge the president, and already are, because there are certainly astute politicians in the opposition. Mr. Dean, in particular, although a darling of the liberal establishment, may have to watch what he says on the topic of national defense. I don't believe that his recent pronouncement that the United States will not always have the strongest military in the world aids his cause with American voters. He can have an ardent base of support with all the liberals in America, and even score on some pocket-book issues such as middle-class targeted tax cuts, and still get trounced on election day if he comes off sounding week on national security. I would think that the more conservative Democratic candidates, someone like Joe Lieberman, could use his strong positions on national defense to draw out an advantage over his Democratic rivals, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest parts of the country.
I'm not sure at this stage which candidate has the advantage in the realm of social issues. There is currently a raging debate about the meaning of "marriage" in this country, and I think both major parties are seeking to cast that debate in their favor. I have to say that I'm on the side of the traditional interpretation of what marriage means, but I totally abhor discrimination and persecution of anybody.
At this point I don't have a clear indication about who will win this election, or who I will support. Maybe this forum will help me make up my mind.
Comment by Steven Bohannon
Actually no President has won without taking Louisiana since 1968. If the Democrats win Louisiana I agree they win the election. If Bush wins Louisiana he probably wins the election as well, although I can conceive of a way a Democrat could get 270 Electoral votes without Louisiana (Gore would have won without Louisiana for example had he carried Florida). George Wallace carried Louisiana in 1968, Barry Goldwater in 1964, Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 and all of them lost. However, that was a very different time when Louisiana was a provincial segregationist enclave rather than a true swing state (but still with a distinctly southern flavor) like it is today. No doubt, Louisiana is a key state and both parties will be well advised to campaign there. I think Dean can carry all the states you listed except maybe Florida. Without Florida he would need New Mexico, West Virginia and Nevada. or Ohio, or Missouri, or Arizona, or Arkansas and New Mexico, or a few other combinations might work. Bush could be competitive in Wisconsin and Minnesota though--those states have become more competitive for Republicans than many people realize, but I think Dean has a distinct advantage over the other Democrats in both the Upper Midwest and the Desert Southwest---if he can do well in these areas he can win the election even if he gets shutout in the South.
Comment by Keith Brekhus
As Americans, we have a responsibility to protect all people, gay or not, male or not, old or not. As for the war....John Kerry has done the worst job of any democrat in articulating our position. If you are for the war, be consistently for the war. Embrace the weapons of mass destruction argument. I see Bush as by far the worse of two evils.My mother said, "If that Bush gets elected, we'll have a war or a recession or both.""or both" is right on target. The massive tax cuts haven't helped anything. Millions are out of work. Bush is a cro-magnon on social policy and is putting our fighting men and women in harm's way every single day. People that expect a sweep of the Democratic "sacrificial lamb" will be sorely mistaken. I don't think anyone expects California's 55 electoral vote, New York's 31, D.C.'s 3, Washington's 11, Oregon's 7, Minnesota's 10, Wisconsin's 10, Massachusetts' 12, Maine's 4, Vermont's 3, Connecticut's 7, Rhode Island's 4, New Jersey's 15, or Hawaii's 4 to go for Bush. Add all those up and you have 176 electoral votes. Less than a hundred less than the Democrat would need to win. Several other states (Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, Iowa) are competitive even this early. If the Dem carried all of those, he would win with a pretty sizable margin---286 electoral votes. If you think there was NO imminent threat from Saddam, then side with Dean. You're right that it's too early to say who the nominee will be or even who the frontrunner is. But to say that anyone except Dean has forward momentum is silly. All the positive headlines, the volunteer swell, the money swell, points to Dean as a frontrunner. Is it just me, or am I tired of Senators running for President? Americans like GOVERNORS running for President. People with executive experience. In the modern era: Carter (Governor),Reagan (Governor), Bush I (CIA guy, VP),Clinton (Governor),*Bush II (Governor) I put an * by Bush II's name because he didn't win the popular vote. But the fact remains that 4 of our last 5 presidents have been governors. Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and possibly Joe Biden are out of touch with that reality.
Comment by Jonathan in GA
A couple thoughts on Dean vs. Kerry as the Democratic nominee:
In some ways this discussion may be academic. Ultimately the 2004 election may be above all else a referendum on whether people approve or disapprove of Bush, regardless of the Democratic nominee.
However, when comparing Dean and Kerry ironically I find Dean's strengths are also his weaknesses and the same is true for Kerry. Let me explain.
I see Kerry as a safe candidate...no matter what, he will solidly carry the Democratic base and deliver the 12 safest Democratic states and DC without a doubt. If Bush is unpopular come next November, Kerry will never gaffe and completely blow the election. On the other hand if Bush is even doing so-so, he can safely be reelected as the incumbent because Kerry isn't going to fire up new voters or inspire swing voters enough to be a threat to Bush if Bush is reasonably popular.
Dean has an entirely different dynamic---he is a firebrand, a risk-taker and potentially a loose cannon. He could gaffe and blow a safe state like New York, or he could blow the lid open and stun Bush in Montana, Colorado or Nevada. With Dean you can't take anything for granted either way--he could get rolled in a landslide or he could win in the political earthquake of the century because he redefines the way a campaign is run.
Lets take the comparison to the swing states and see who fares better.
I'll also point out that Governor's usually fare better than Senators (big edge-Dean)
On the other hand, taller candidates almost always win--Dean is 5'9", Kerry over 6' (big edge Kerry).
Now the swing state comparison.
Some states like Utah and Alabama are safe for the Republicans. Others like Vermont and Massachusetts are safe for the Democrats.
Ultimately the election will be decided in these states:
Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, Minnesota and Michigan are all must wins for the Democrats, but close enough to be up for grabs. Gore carried all these states.
if a Democrat carries all the states Gore carried (not including disputed Florida) they will need 10 more electoral votes to win the election from any combination below:
West Virginia (5)
New Hampshire (4)
Taking these swing states who looks better Dean or Kerry?
Pennsylvania: probably not much difference here, but I would give the edge to Kerry. I think either candidate pulls this one of over Bush but it will be perilously close.
Iowa: moderate edge to Dean. He is polling 19% there among likely Caucus attendees compared to 12% for Kerry.
Wisconsin and Minnesota: I think big edge for Dean. These Upper Midwesterners love no-nonsense confrontational Washington outsiders like Wellstone, Feingold and Jesse Ventura. Dean is like a mix of all three of those, Kerry just comes across as a typical east coast liberal to the folks in Minneapolis or Madison.
Oregon: Dean has a big edge over Kerry in the West.
New Mexico: Even bigger than Oregon, Dean is very popular in polls conducted in the Rocky Mountain and Desert Southwest states. His neo-libertarian states rights stance on gun control makes him the ideal Democratic candidate for this region of the West. I would say huge edge Dean, but since Kerry is polling well among Hispanics in Iowa I'll be nice and say moderate edge Dean assuming Kerry's Hispanic support in Iowa translates into something nationally as well.
Michigan: Actually with unions so strong this is Gephardt territory. However, between Kerry and Dean I will rule this one a push...Kerry appeals to traditional Democrats and will probably fare pretty well with blacks here too. Dean will score extremely well in college towns like Ann Arbor and Lansing and in the Upper Penninsula. In either case, a Democrat should win Michigan especially since the Arab-American vote which went 2-1 for Bush in 2000 is trending a complete reversal (polls suggest 2-1 for the Democrat in 2004). The Arab-American vote is a large block in Michigan.
Arizona: slight edge Dean for reasons stated about New Mexico. Kerry stays close because of retirees.
West Virginia: Big edge Dean. Despite support for gay civil unions (not popular in conservative WV),Dean wins out because of gun stance and Washington outsider status.
New Hampshire: Push. Either candidate wins it over Bush as a backyard New England perk.
Nevada: Definite edge Dean and a huge edge at that.
Arkansas: Push. Neither one wins, unless Wesley Clark is VP candidate, then either one probably wins.
Florida: strong edge Kerry. This is one state where I will admit Kerry has a distinct advantage over Dean. While Dean is running better among seniors than one might expect, this is still Kerry's domain.
Ohio: Push. Maybe slight edge Dean just for his Chutzpah, but I doubt either one carries Ohio.
Missouri: Big edge Dean, but chances are Bush wins Missouri anyway.
It would appear either Dean or Kerry is capable of scoring the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to become President.
Comment by Keith Brekhus
Click here to post your comments and join the debate.