LONG... sorry... but ya know, it's got to be...

Lots of people are by this time asking me for whom I am going to cast my vote come November 2.

I'm still undecided.

I have been a registered Democrat since I registered prior to the presidential election in 1992. I have rarely, if ever, voted party line, except perhaps in that first election. Since then I have probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans, but I have cast my votes after researching the candidates and issues at hand. In 2000, for example, disaffected by both major candidates, I cast my presidential vote for Ralph Nader in an attempt to boost the profile of the Green Party.

This year I won't do that. Too much is at stake. One of the two major candidates is going to win the election, and my vote could literally be the one that makes the decision, especially since I am in one of those "key/battleground/turning" states -- Ohio. I have listened to debates, watched news conferences and news reports, viewed websites, and read voters' guides.

And yet, I still don't know.

The fact is, I'm not a one-issue voter. I refuse to be. I refuse to allow a single issue to color my entire world. My point of reference wouldn't even allow me to do that, seeing as I am both a moral conservative and a socioeconomic liberal. I am a critical thinker, a seeker of truth, a researcher, and last, a sought-after voter. I weigh things out.

It looks pretty d*mn even right now.

The War on Terror:
Kerry has told the truth about war. People who are desperate to win a war do terrible things -- "whatever it takes" -- acts of violence that we would normally consider heinous crimes against humanity. It is unfortunate that his words were used by the VietCong in their torture of POWs, but that does not mean that Kerry intended to "give aid and comfort to the enemy." Our government has already made its determination about whether or not Kerry's words were treason -- they were not, or he would have been arrested, tried, and convicted thirty years ago! Sometimes the truth hurts, and Kerry's willingness to tell the truth is a sign of leadership above and beyond following orders.
Bush, on the other hand, needed to take action against those who attacked us. I think that ultimately his decision to send troops into Afghanistan, although it caused me great anxiety, was a good one. Al Quada hasn't succeeded in carrying out another attack on the U.S., although some of our allies have now suffered. Getting us embroiled in a war in Iraq for reasons that have now been discounted was a poor decision. Saying that he is waging war to bring peace smacks of an even greater lie. Bush needs to admit that his efforts in the war on terror have provided mixed results at best, and if he is reelected, he needs to think very carefully about who he goes to for advice, and coming up with a plan from start to finish -- i.e., a plan with multiple scenarios and above all, an exit strategy.
Finally, a comment about one of the latest commercials I've seen: "Kerry says we need to get to a point where terrorists are a nuisance, like drugs and gambling." Yes! Stop there! Kerry wants to continue efforts *against* terrorists so that they are no longer a serious threat, and he wants to keep them there. This particular ad, paid for by the Republican National Committee, stinks of tunnel vision. It implies that Kerry thinks terrorists are a nuisance right now, which is completely incorrect. The RNC should be ashamed of its attempt to alter the meaning of Kerry's words in the minds of those who are not paying full attention to the ads.


Health Care Policy:
Kerry wants a government-sponsored health care program. I agree with the idea of health care for everyone. Basic health care is a human right, and there are people, including me, who forgo preventative checkups because our insurance (if we even have insurance) doesn't cover our expenses well enough. It's been proven that without preventative care, people show up sicker when they do seek medical care, and they often end up making more costly emergency room visits to seek that care. We need to do something to help everyone in the U.S. get adequate care.
By all indications, Bush thinks we're doing fine with our current system.
Another indictment of a RNC-sponsored commercial: "Kerry's health care plan includes the IRS and the Treasury Department. Your doctor is in there... somewhere." Anyone who knows how insurance works also knows that the IRS and the Treasury Department are already involved in health care. The IRS evaluates and regulates pre-tax contributions towards insurance premiums and medical savings accounts. The Treasury Department has a hand in the administration of Medicare and Medicaid disbursements. The truth is that both of these agencies will continue to be part of any insurance plan regardless of whether it is privately or publicly administered.


The Budget Deficit/Defense Spending:
If I spent like our government, I'd be in jail.
From Bush's perspective, all bets were off as of 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001. Everything changed -- priorities, campaign promises, foreign relations -- because we were forced to face an enemy we had not taken seriously before. Our defense spending went through the roof. Education mandates (like No Child Left Behind) went unfunded. All of our resources were channeled into the war on terror, and that channel remains open today.
My question is, how are we going to continue to fund our massive war effort (please call it what it is) without raising taxes? How are we going to enforce the standards of NCLB if there is no money for adequate educational materials and school maintenance? Here in Ohio, we've been fighting over school funding for years and years... in part because of federal regulations and contributions. Unfunded mandates are *not* the answer. We need to see a new sense of fiscal responsiblility, starting with no-bid contracts. I understand that the one no-bid contract to a Halliburton sibsidiary was given due to time constraints, but even a no-bid contract should not be a blank check. Our government needs to scrutinize every payment for services rendered. Even I can do that.
Also, there's no question that our government has *grown* despite the Republicans' claim that they support smaller government. This is most due to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and an increase in domestic intelligence investigations. It's hard to fault that, but it also stands as a reminder of a philosophy that didn't work out in the long run.
Yet I haven't seen *how* Kerry will make his plans work. He's got structures... he's got numbers... but there's no sense of congruence between the two.
Another commercial critique: the number of times Kerry has "voted to raise taxes" keeps growing and growing... During the first and second debates, it was, I think, 83. Now I hear a new commercial that quotes something over 300. What? When? Did he cast 200 votes I haven't heard about in the last few weeks?


Education:
My sister is a special education teacher and she is voting for Kerry based mostly on this single issue. The No Child Left Behind Act is not only an unfunded mandate; it also does not take into account children with special needs. For the past two years she has taught children who, because of their disabilities, will probably never earn a high school diploma. Some of them may earn a special certificate, and some, after extra years of work, might get a GED. A few of her students will succeed in the time allotted *if* they or the school can afford one-on-one tutoring and alternative teaching methods. As of right now, she is teaching a multi-grade class of 20, and in almost every conversation she asks me, rhetorically, "How am I supposed to teach them like this?"
If Bush wants to "do the right thing" he needs to make a choice: either repeal the No Child Left Behind Act for lack of funding, or change it so it allows for special needs children and give it the funding it needs.


The Sanctity of Life:
This is likely to be the overriding issue if I have to choose a tiebreaker; but it's still complicated.
Bush signed an executive order limiting federal research funds to work on embryonic stem cell lines that existed at the time of the order. His XO affected neither private funding for embryonic stem cell research, nor any funding for adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has already produced therapies that are either in trial or proven to work. Embryonic stem cell research has not produced any therapies -- not even experimental -- as of yet.
Bush also opposes abortion. If we lived in an ideal world, I'm sure he would support the total outlaw of abortion, and I would, too. He supports the ban on partial-birth abortion. So do I. My mother and I had a long conversation about the fact that I have not lived in an age when abortion was illegal. That said, and knowing that the world is less than ideal, I would support restrictions that allow for abortions certified to save the mother's life, and allow for rape victims to have abortions due to the violent nature of the baby's conception. Still, I abhor the idea of "abortion on demand" and hope that in all but the most extreme cases, some form of counseling and wait period would be a requirement... 24 hours and a second counseling appointment are not going to push a woman across the trimester threshold.
Bush also opposes euthanasia. A long time ago I supported euthanasia, in part because I went through a period of intense physical and emotional suffering from which I thought I would never emerge. However, having watched people go through hospice care, I am convinced that there is a better solution than ending people's lives on our own terms. Some suffering in exchange for the value of life is well worth it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope based on utility and arbitrary definitions of suffering and hopelessness.
For all of these reasons, I would support Bush -- but there are two glaring reasons why it raises my gall just to think about voting for him. The first is his support for capital punishment. I believe in the sanctity of *all* human life, and that means even the murderers and those who commit heinous crimes. I do not think we can condemn a fellow human and carry out an execution in the name of justice without malice, prejudice or vengeance. The second is Bush's proclivity to declare war now and negotiate later. War leads to death. War is an angry solution to a problem that should always be approached in a peaceful manner first.
My question to Kerry would be -- if you are personally opposed to abortion, and your faith tells you abortion is wrong, why would you support it as a "right"? To win votes? To appease your opponents? Why do you wash your hands like Pilate before the crucifixion of Christ? To avoid the serious question of taking innocent life?


God help me on November 2. One or the other. Please.

If Tuesday comes around and u still don't know...

Flip a coin.

The fact is, I'm not a one-issue voter. I refuse to be. I refuse to allow a single issue to color my entire world.

I think we differ, Redngold, on a few issues, but that puts you on my RR.

And that was one of the most well thought-out posts I've ever read. Outstanding, Redngold.

Personally, I think I know who you should vote for, but out of respect, I won't preach to you about that. Excellent post!  

Actually, my bad, Redngold. You're already on my RR, and it seems there's a good reason for that.  

Nobody that is serious about politics is a one -issue voter.Judging somebody on just one issue is stupidity at it's worst.Bush has done some good things and bad things.Also Kerry has his good and bad points.

A simple question should answer the dilemma for you...

Are you comfortable with your president being smarter than you?

then vote -----

OR

Are you comfortable with your president being dumber than you?

then vote ----

it's quite simple when you think about it...

BN747

Falcon --

Thanks for the respect, dude. I put you on my list soon after I found out I was on yours.  

Y'know, sentiments like I've expressed above are the reason why I managed to p*ss off both a liberal and a conservative in no more than five months earlier this year... I'm persona non grata on their websites now... So much for critical thinking...  

"I have rarely, if ever, voted party line,.."

Great! You do understand how things get done done't you? The word "majority" doesn't really do anything for you then?

Hey Jeff,

Does "balance of power" do anything for you? How about "checks and balances" on a smaller scale? How about making sure that I cast my vote for the people who best support my interests, regardless of political affiliation?


redngold

"How about making sure that I cast my vote for the people who best support my interests, regardless of political affiliation?"

That sounds great, and probably gives you a warm fuzzy feeiling when you say it huh? But without a majority, it remains nothing but just that....a warm feeling that could have been....

Well, then, I guess that's what makes me an idealist and you a cynic.

I give it my best shot, and yes, it does make me feel good. And sometimes, good things *do* happen.

It's better than not trying at all.

Cynic? LOL.... nice one.

You "give it try", I'll make it happen.

Jeff,

If you're going to pick up on one phrase of my entire essay, then you are sorely missing the point. Read it again and decide if you still want to argue.

As for making things happen, being authoritarian gets results that last short amount of time. Building consensus takes some time but gets long-lasting results.

Good night,
redngold

I can hear the sucking sounds from here! Desperate liberals looking for any vote!

TechRep

If Tuesday comes around and u still don't know...

Flip a coin.

The sad thing is many people in the US have this mentality, and for some reason, the coins have BUSH written on both sides...

Sebastian

I can hear the sucking sounds from here! Desperate liberals looking for any vote!

ROTFL. That's so pathetic. Are you a twin of JeffM, with your meaningless one-liners, TechRep.

The only sucking sound is you sucking up to anything that says it's Republican.

Jeff,

If you're going to pick up on one phrase of my entire essay, then you are sorely missing the point.

Unfortunately, Redngold, that's what some extremists like JeffM do-they take one line out of a whole thought, and twist it till it has lost it's original meaning. Republicans have become experts at that in campaigns over the last 25 years.

RednGold, first let me say your post was extremely impressive. It was well thought out and you made some valid points. And you even spelled everything correctly. Bonus points for proper punctuation also.

That being said, don't waste your time with Jeff. His room temperature IQ prohibits him from comprehending any thought process that doesn't end with a punch line. If you had written your post on Saturday morning, he would have been watching cartoons instead of surfing the net and we wouldn't have to be bothered with is ramblings.

I can hear the sucking sounds from here!

I'm going to include that line in the letter I'm writing to the CIA.....

Redngold: While I don't agree with you on all points, I think your post was very well thought out and well put. As you have indicated that you are not a one issue voter, let me try to post something for you (and anyone else who may care to check this out) that cross-cuts many, many issues. Go to

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

and check out the links to two reports that have been signed by multiple Nobel Laureates and Medal of Science recipients regarding the Bush Administration's misuse and misrepresentation of science. Science-something that cross cuts nearly every issue you can think of. If they can continue to misrepresent the state of science in their policy making, just how many decisions are being made that are based on some unknown agenda and not sound science?

I am a democrat, and I'll admit that I am not exactly nuts about John Kerry in a few ways, but I would do everything I could to prevent the Bush administration from continuing this "policy." Please realize that the reports above are not, in my opinion, and more importantly, in the opinion of Nobel Laureates and the like, propaganda. These are documentable decisions to squelch the truth in their policy decisions.

Good luck with your decision on 11/2.

John

If you put it the following way, its hard to be undecided.

The Republican party wishes to restrict the liberties of American citizens
The Democratic party seeks to expand the liberties of American citizens

any other interests are secondary and unimportant.

N

Gigneil one of my liberties is the mostly unencumbered ownership of guns. Does your simple version apply here?

Redngold while I am probably to the right of you in general I like your post and appreciate reasonableness at this time.

It is an unfortunate fact of life here that third-party candidates tend to be seen as (or actually be. . .) fringies, loonies. For example Ralph Nader. . . okay bad example because I owned three Corvairs.

I'm afraid that any person who is attracted to politics in the first place may be morally damaged to the point of rendering them unfit for public service. When "None of the above" appears on the ballot, and is binding I will regain a lot of my lost interest in our elections. I am disenfranchised because I do not like any of the millionaires that have been hand-picked by the billionaires who really run this country.

Keep up the critical thinking, no matter how unrewarding or even depressing it is. Both sides lie, but sometimes people on both sides tell truths.

Redngold: a very well thought out post, and I can see where you would have your doubts about both candidates. I do disagree with certain Bush views and programs, but I also have numerous problems with Kerry's views. These days, it seems that in many different elections, we are voting for the lesser of the evils, as opposed to voting for a particular candidate that we agree with all the time (not saying that's true in this election, but I have noticed that tendancy).

Your last paragraph, regarding the sanctity of life spoke volumes to me. We are all here today because our mothers were pro-life (pre or post-Roe vs. Wade children). That's a basic fact of life, and there's no way around it.

A pro-life candidate always scores major points in my book. I would love to hear Kerry's answers to your final questions.

Tom at MSY

[Edited 2004-10-27 19:32:16]

Redngold....In addition to knowing about books, you apparently are thoughtful as well.

Welcome to my RR list.

Your points, if I may, one by one:

War on Terror. The democrats have never placed enough emphasis on defence, and have always leaned to the side of giving people a chance and then going after them when they hurt us. President Bush said, and I agree, that we can no longer afford to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue (even though we are still doing it domestically due to our rightful aversion to bypassing the Constitution) and that we cannot afford to wait to get hit anymore. 9-11 proved that to us all, I would think. This was the true justification for going into Iraq, that they were unwilling to open up completely and prove they had no WMDs. Evidently Sadaam enjoyed comfort by thinking that he would keep everyone guessing and no one would attack him if they thought he had them. President Bush and his administration has the terrorists on the defensive, and not sleeping well. THey are still planning on attacking us, and I would not be surprised to find they have something in mind for the last few days prior to the election. (Look for that thread) John Kerry has voted against every weapons system he could ,and taken the political road over the defence road every chance he has had. His vote against the 87 billion was just a classic expample of politics winning him over our true needs. His explanations and lawyerly excuses later proved his basic character.

Health Care President Bush got the medicare overhaul through, and the prescription drug benefit passed, which no democrat did. The AARP endorsed both on television. Is our system perfect? No. Should we go to a single payer system, look hard at Germany and Canada. Look at the economic problems they are causing, as well as how long it takes to get somethings done there. No one is turned away at a hospital in AMerica when they need service, but the lines they endure will be the lines we all endure if the Democrats turn our system toward socialized medicine, which is their ultimate goal. We need to figure out how to reign in medical costs and we have to figure out a better system for distribution of drugs. Technology has seemingly always outstripped law, but the lawyers always find ways to increase the costs. Edwards legal career was made on the backs of obstetricians, look it up, and increasing the cost on liability insurance for MDs to the crisis point. Drugcos that spend the money to research and produce medicine also have to maintain a cash reserve to defend themselves against the gamut of legal actions facing them. Republicans have the same needs as democrats but are interested in finding the best way to get our needs met, rather than trying to ensure fairness by dumbing down and slowing down the system. I know I just went to Blue Cross to buy a medical policy, and my neighbor did not, but he bought some stuff for his car. I think the principle of medical self responsibility is undervalued here. That is not to say that some do fall through the cracks, and we need to help the people who truly need it..

Education I keep hearing NCLB is unfunded or underfunded, depending on who is making which point, so there is confusion out there. It is like calling a decrease in the budget increase a funding cut. Accounting gobbledygook (a technical term I pulled from the OED). Education has been in the hands of the democrats for the last 50 years and we have suffered for it. A total abdication of responsibility on the parts of the parents and school systems, who blame each other, and the poorly qualified teachers overwhelm the good teachers who make the efforts to educate our young. Education needs some principles that President Bush has articulated, and congress needs to fund completely w/NCLB. Parents, Teachers, School systems and students need to come to grips with the fact that teaching is all of our responsibility and teachers need to not only show, but involve parents. Parents need to be involved and stay on top of their children. Systems need to worry more about kids than liability and political correctness. I think that President Bush is on the right track, and that the principles espoused by Republicans are the ones we should teach.

Sanctity of life....Boy this is hard. Not even kidding there. I feel that President Bush, who has assiduously avoided talk of banning abortion outright for genuine concern about the 50% of Republicans who support abortion rights is going to do nothing about this. He has endorsed the ban on partial-birth abortions, which I support. I do feel that if the doctor is faced with the medical decision to take one life to save another, this is not abortion but lifesaving. When the person is practicing post coital birthcontrol, they are ending the beating of a heart and the protected growth a something much more than an unviable tissue mass. I disagree with many in my family that call it choice, I call it abortion. It is not religion that motivates me, it is our societal mores and Constitution. No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. No one you ask would think it a good thing to end the life of an infant. Kerry will appoint Supreme Court Justices who would allow this to happen. Bush has said there will be no litmus test on abortion for his justices, and the ones he would replace are already conservative anyway. Kerry is trying to once again straddle the fence in the hopes of pleasing everyone.

That is the basic difference. Do you believe Bush is telling you what he intends to do, or do you think he won't do what he says he'll do?

Kerry has already proven he will float with the winds of politics, and his constant retrenchments over the last year have allowed him to fill the democrats "anyone" slot in the "anyone but Bush" campaign. He is not to be trusted to be resolute or moral in his decision making.

President Bush may not be moral all the time, but he is resolute and the terrorists are on the defensive, and the economy, which you did not mention is on the way back after the recession he inherited and the attacks hit us almost simultaneously. His policies have put more money in our hands and more hope on the horizon. Kerry will tax us back into a hole, and there will be no tech boom (thanks Ronnie) to bail him out for a while.

Redngold,

Unfortunately, there are precious few outlets that lend themselves to the intelligent, critical discussion of issues. This is a world of ten-second soundbites (actually, I was once told the ideal soundbite is seven seconds) where simplistic polarization is in and analytical thinking is, well, boring and not good for ratings.

It's intriguing that some folks responded to your essay by basically quoting chapter and verse from a generic spin book that could belong to any Republican hack.

Keep asking the tough questions.

If you have not figured it out yet, you probably should not vote.

The differences are so clear.

Make your decision already and stop with the "coin tosses".


Oh and this is just for you since you like it so....

I personally prefer this one:



Sebastian  

[Edited 2004-10-27 22:58:34]

Redngold- While I too disagree with some of your points, I have the utmost respect for your outstanding post and well-thought out essay.

I too have struggled immensely with the decision. But I haven't limited it to the two-party slate that I've been presented with.

You must vote your conscience as you see fit and that it ultimately what our Republic depends upon-- an informed electorate that will vote to uphold the US Constitution.

Whether you believe either Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Badnarik, Nader or others will better uphold that single most important standard for our nation is what your choice comes down to. Best of luck in your choice--I know exactly what you're going through.

To CommanderRabb & Sebi:






To the Candidates ad nauseum:

That's funny?

Try again lady.

A good friend of mine has a non-partisan bumper sticker that says it all for me:

"If you aren't completely appalled by now, then you haven't been paying attention!"

Redngold:
You are one of the few intelligent users at this site and I always appreciate the mental stimulation of your post. That’s a rarity at these forums now.
Anyhow, if you were happy with the last 4 years of Bush you wouldn’t be so “disgusted” today. Therefore 4 more years of Bush will continue to make you “Disgusted”. I can’t imagine Kerry being any worse than Bush. The House of Representatives will most likely stay Republican. Electing John Kerry will certainly put in place a system of “checks and balances”. As you already mentioned.
As far as sanctity of life, I also oppose euthanasia just like Bush but do you think I am going to vote for Bush over this issue?
Hell no!
Bush and his corner of the Republican Party believe life starts at conception and ends at birth. His programs and tactics as President proves it.
President John Kerry will not ‘encourage’ abortions. He will just protect a women’s right to do if they feel it’s necessary.

"Bush and his corner of the Republican Party believe life starts at conception and ends at birth."

Wow, short life huh?

Yeah and the view is terrible in that short life

...and short sighted.  

your an idiot if you do not make one issue a priority, and that would be the war on terror, this country is facing a a big problem so vote W

Which one are you?

Funny cartoon WellHung! 

And my man WellHung scores with that one. Hysterical.  

Gigneil one of my liberties is the mostly unencumbered ownership of guns.

There is absolutely nothing that says anything about unencumbered. Law abiding citizens have full access to reasonable weaponry.

If you believe the Constitution secures the right for legal ownership of weaponry that could rival a small police force or mow down a standing National Guard unit, then I have problems with that logic.

N

TheTuna -- and *you* are one of the reasons why I despise the idea of voting for Bush. While we pour billions into the war on terror, people here are suffering for lack of affordable health care, lack of decent housing, a high tax burden and low income.

WellHung -- none of the above.

RednGold,
excellent post, well thought out, and intelligent, but lots of people have told you that already, you're probably on half of A.net's respected user list.

I think for me I have to vote Kerry, but it is really more a vote against Bush.

Reasons

1) One can be "resolute" by banging his head against a wall. Being resolute is not necessarily the smartest course all the time. Even the toughest CEOs know that they will make mistakes and when they do, they have to correct it quickly. I applaud Bush in his war in Afghanistan, the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda who did attack us. He undeniably did the right thing there. Its an obvious right to defend ourselves, but, I had big problems with his war in Iraq, which was based on bogus charges and assumptions, and which also seemed planned almost even before 9-11! Sort of a grand wag the dog. I still have no idea the real reason for invading Iraq. Was it some sort of grand thing to avenge his father? To control oil? To show other Arab regimes not to get too "uppity?" Who the eff knows?

2) The execution of the Iraq war was a dismal failure. Since I and all my buddies in Washington Heights knew it would be a guerilla war, and knew the notion of grateful Iraqis draping US soldiers with flowers and anointing Ahmed Chalabi leader so we could go home in six months was a joke, why didn't Bush's team? There was too little planning for after war and what planning there was was poor and chaotic and frankly extremely naive, like a bunch of nerdy high school kids playing Risk. A leader has to face up to his failures because every leader will make them. That is the tough CEO mentality again. You take your lumps learn from your mistakes and correct them. It angers me even more that Bush won't admit his mistakes there. That is either gross arrogance or a politician too craven and afraid to admit a mistake for fear of being a flip-flopper. Either way it is a big turn off for me. I'd have had more respect for him if he said. "My fellow Americans, we made a lot of big mistakes in Iraq, now here's how I'm gonna correct them." He'd have shown me he was a man.

3) It seems like a joke to say I'll vote against a Republican because I like small government, especially because I have no illusions that Kerry will shrink government, but Bush spends money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, that's dangerous! Plus I'm betting that Kerry will still face a Republican congress so we get blessed gridlock.

4) Elitism, well they are both elitist snobs, but Bush is better at putting on a just folks act, so that is even.

5) Health Care policy
I think that some basic modicum of care should be considered a right for all Americans, and if that means I have to shell out a bit more, well so be it. We're either a country of citizens pulling together or not. Doesn't mean socialized medicine and while I have doubts about Kerry's plan (or his ability to get it through congress) Bush's commercials verge on hysterical.

6) Education policy
Don't know enough about this, I'm embarrassed to say.

7) Sanctity of life.
This is a tough one. I am ignorant on the whole stem cell issue, but on abortion, It seems like I have no place to tell a woman what to do with her womb, but at the same time a fetus is a human, it isn't part of the mother (how could you be a "male" part of a female?) So if you excise a fetus, you have to be killing something, even if it isn't viable, it is still a human. So I have a problem with it. Kerry's stance seems to me to be a typical politician's wiggling, but Kerry isn't the only politician to do this - and I think bans on late-term abortions is a good idea. but like you Redngold, I believe in the sanctity of all life, even killers? Why? well

I) Experience shows us that the justice system isn't perfect, so if you convict someone in error and he is alive, at least you can release him, throw buckets of money at him and try to help him pick up the pieces of his life, small consolation, I know, but if he is dead, then there is nothing you can do for him. All the DNA testing which has resulted in hundreds of convicted killers and rapists walking free really has shaken my confidence in the justice system.

ii) A person can have an epiphany in jail, and try to repent, either by doing good works by trying to keep others off of his path or by letting neurologists and psychologists study him to find out the mind of a killer, hey if we knew that most psychotic killers had low dopamine in the so-and-so portion of Broca's area, well then if there was a five-year-old who had that we could try to help him before he went serial killer on us. Fanciful? No more than testing kids for hearing deficits, eyesight or anything else, but since we have a whole lot of adult killers, we may as well study them to find out if we *can* learn something useful.

Well my post is long and rambling as many of my posts are but hopefully someone will find it useful in making up his or her mind.

If you don't live in a key state, don't feel compelled to vote for Kerry just to vote against Bush.

I highly recommend a vote for the libertarian candidate. The libertarian ideal is the perfect union of fiscal conservatism with liberal morality.

N