Poll: What's your level of threat to the Bush administration?

I do hope John Ashcroft isn't reading this, since the votes currently are 2 "gigantically huge" and 0 anything else.

It's not that sort of threat that I pose, but I'll do anything in my citizen's power to make sure that he is not re-elected [edited: make that REAPPOINTED], and that his anti-environment, anti-elderly, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-child, pro-death, church-and-state-merging agenda is hamstrung for the next 14.5 months.

don't even get me started...bush is anti-everything and I'm anti-bush

I would love to pose more of a threat but i live inthe Uk so cannot vote f=in Us elections.� I am more worried abot us returning to the right again.� In this country there is a new route there.� You elect a theoretically left of centre party and then they shift further and further right, infringing on civil liberties and the like.�� Witht he anti-terrorism laws that are currently in play in the Lndon people can be arrested fro peaceful protest.�� This has gone to annoying new extremes now and is not on.� Under our previous rightwing government tings changed so that a group of parents waiting for their kids outside of the school gates could be arrested for having an illegal rave.� Now it is getting much worse.�� Bush is bad but more and more people are seeing this and� he can be voted out if people work consciously and are not apathetic about voting.� In this country there is no alternative.� We have three party sytem and the two big ones are almost identical now.� There is no opposition except through peaceful protest and the press and both of these are being curtailed.�� I just don'tunderstand it anymore.

I'm not in politics.
I'm not involved in media or anything else that has that much of a public face
I tend to be more in observation than activist mode anyways

I do plan to vote against him in the next election, so I suppose that puts my level as one in two hundred and fifty something million.

Thing is though, the options in this poll struck me as downright confusing. Both in wording and in order. But then, I don't think anyone's had anything really new to say on the topic of bush for a long time.

10 PRINT "Anti-Bush folks say 'a' "
20 PRINT "Pro-Bush folks say 'b' "
30 GOTO 10

I just can't get myself worked up about this anymore. It's not to say I don't care, as I've said here and before, I can't wait for the administration to be gone (of course, for that to happen, another party would have to find someone worth voting for), but I don�t think that ranting the same thing for four years is going to make a difference either.

In the end though, I'm much more actively upset about the middle school kid who I just heard was getting expelled from his area middle school because he "drew a violent comic book".

I don't think we really need to worry about Ashcroft reading this. We've been on his enemies list since he took office.

I promised myself that I'm going to be an actual threat and actively work for the democratic candidtate in the next election. I didn't last one and look what happened. The last time I put in really major hours was Clinton's first election. I might even hitch my wagon to Kerry for the primaries.

If you want Bush out the one thing I implore you to do is not vote for the Green Party. If it weren't for Nader Bush would not be president today. The election was close enough that that is clear.

Sorry, but I still think people should vote for who ever they think would make the best president. Most of the people I know who voted Green weren't going to vote at all anyways, so far as I can tell, that wasn't much of a factor, but even if it was...

Firstly, the election wasn't lost, but we can talk about that for years (actually, we all have ;-)

Secondly, Gore ran an awful campaign. Most, if not all, of the blame is his. He was the vice-president of a two-term president who left office with the [then] highest approval rating ever, and the best he could pull was roughly half? He distanced himself from said popular president. He distanced himself from all but the moderate core of his own party, and rather than try to get undecided people to vote, he tried to woo people who were already going to vote for Bush anyways.

If you find this bumper sticker for sale somewhere, let me know.� I want one.

Word.

Strategy in elections is up to the people working on the campaigns. Voters should vote for the candidate they want to see in office, period.

And, re: Gore's campaign, if he had just carried his home state, which shouldn't be hard, especially for a semi-incumbent, we wouldn't have needed to worry about Florida.

other anti-bush stickers,
W stands for Whore.
a small town in texas is missing its idiot.

Is the purpose of voting to get the best possible government or to keep yourself morally pure? Why not just write in the person you think is the best person for the job even if he or she isn't running then? If you don't care about stategy then don't complain when a Bush gets elected.

That's how Mickey Mouse gets so many votes. :-)

I think the purpose of voting is to make sure your voice is heard, meaning that you vote for the person whose beliefs best match your own.� As a registered Democrat in Indiana, the electoral college makes sure that my voice is silenced.

I've always thought that people who don't vote have forfeited their right to complain about the failings of the administration.� If you're not part of the solution (by voting), then you're part of the problem (low voter turnout).

DC isn't a state. :-)

Yes, but neither Bush nor Gore was the best possible government. I think Gore could make a good president, but he needs to definie himself better first. If he runs in '08, I could still consider voting for him, but I couldn't do it in '00.

And no, I don't think Nader would have been the best president ever elected, but I also think that it's important that we get beyond a two party state, which is another reason to vote for him (aside from the fact that he best represented me out of the people running).

Since the question was regarding "level of threat," I had to answer "lower than low."� However, if we're answering by the comments, I'd have chosen "gigantically huge."� While I believe that "human rights for all, including Arabs" is the best statement, I won't actually do anything to further that dream... aside from voting non-Republican.

Then again, it seems that exercising our rights IS somehow threatening to the Bush administration.� Hmmm...

Shouldn't we worry more, since we're on the enemies list?

Well said. Well said!!!

I hadn't seen that one but I love it. I saw one this morning that said "Bush Family Values" and had a picture on one side of a bomb impact and on the other a large oil drill...

*patiently waits for the united states liberation army to free norg's household of anti-american terrorist mentality*

the village called.� they want their idiot back.

:D

�-= george =-

Why? Fruheads can't even manage to plan a gathering outside of Toronto in the dead of winter. I seriously doubt we could organize a revolution. ;-)

I think there's a point where idealism collides with pragmatism and you have to go with the best candidate that has a chance of actually taking office to enact his ideas.

I know the goal of the Green campaign in the last Presidential election was to get 5% of votes and therefore qualify for something in future campaigns (matching funds? I forget.) But the point is, no one thought Nader could actually win the election, including Nader himself. His run at the Presidency was a strategy for building political awareness among the disaffected left, so that they could have a chance to win at some point in the indefinite future -- NOT in 2000, for the chance to make policy for the next 4 years and influence the courts for a generation or more.

In that case, when the race is relatively tight and the global implications are enormous, I personally would find it counterproductive and irresponsible to vote for a candidate I thought didn't have a prayer of winning just because his views most closely matched my own. I'd go with the better or best of the forseeable winners. No, Gore wasn't perfect, and no he didn't run a very good campaign -- distancing himself from Clinton was a disaster, for one thing. But that in no way means he was the policy equivalent of what Bush promised.

If people who voted for Nader in the last election genuinely would not have voted otherwise, then yes their votes were a wash, and I'm glad they chose to get involved and exercise their voice instead of staying outside the process. They took a major step toward being responsible, engaged citizens, and that is to be encouraged.

But any other active, regularly-voting citizen with progressive views who voted for Nader to keep their sense of ideals and values pure, instead of holding their nose and making the pragmatic reality-based choice that was Gore, shot themselves and the rest of us in the foot. That holds true of any swing state vote for Nader, but it's especially, heartbreakingly true in Florida. And I am acquainted with several people who voted for Nader for precisely those reasons; they are real, not straw men (or women).

I respect those Nader voters' right to vote with the blinders of individual taste on, but I don't respect the fact that they couldn't take them off for just a little while and look at the big picture. This election was not a referendum on personal ideals; it was a process to determine which man would be the most powerful in the world**. And they let their ideals decide how they behaved in the polling booth, in preference to any recognition of practical consequences.

I'm a Kucinich supporter, so I know something about wanting to vote for ideals. I WILL vote for him in the Pennsylvania primary, if he is still in the race and I haven't found any insurmountable differences with him by that time (I admit I'm concerned about his advocacy of immediate withdrawal in Iraq, because I think we have a responsibility there to clean up our own mess.) But I know Kucinich won't win nationally, so I fully expect to get behind whichever Democrat is nominated. There are a couple of wonderful options (Kerry and Dean), and a so-so one (Clark) -- but even a President Joe Lieberman would be worlds better than the present commander in chief.

If I were basing my vote on conscience, I couldn't find it in me to vote for Lieberman. But -- here's the thing -- the Presidential election isn't about me and my precious conscience. It's about 6 billion OTHER people whose food, shelter, social stability, health, freedom, safety, and human rights are directly impacted by whoever sits in the Oval Office, not to mention all the creatures and natural features that don't have any say about politics at all. All that is at stake -- and the man who currently sits there is one of the worst possible outcomes for them, and is surrounded by staff who are just as bad. So that's got to be the focus -- not what I would like in the best of all possible worlds, but what I can realistically have a chance of getting in November 2004.




**That's not Americentric thinking, dear non-American readers; it's just cold military and economic fact at the moment, and I really don't like it any better than you do.

dude. fruheads can't even buy a carton of orange juice at the grocery store without turning it into an hour-long parade of nonsense. that's why i love us. :)

most of this is sour grapes and this is coming from a "liberal". while you think that this is pragmatism, i'd say that voting for someone because they're the better of two evils is a compromise that i'm not willing to take. i liked gore. sure he ran a poor campaign and i was disappointed with the poll inspired policy switching all through out his campaign, but i thought he'd make a better president than who is currently in office. at least he would be able to pronounce terror and nuclear.

but....

if i had to do it over again, i'd vote nader. seeing what the supposed "democrats" have done in the congress, i can only say good riddens. i hope they all get voted out. i didn't vote for a bunch of DINOs (democrats in name only) and i certainly didn't vote for a party that gives the power of war to the president so he can have a better bargaining position at the UN. since when did the power to make war become a chip to be used at a poker game? (which is why i will not support any of the democratic contenders that voted to support the war).

the democrats are a shameful lot, unless you think that the cowardly non-recorded voice vote for the 87.5 billion handout to iraq was legislative courage (esp. given the fact that the ammendment that punished companies given contracts the defrauded the american taxpayer stiff penalties was removed in the conference committee). and i will only vote for those people i feel deserve my vote. (i.e I'd rather chop my own hands off than vote for lieberman, hell, if i were going to do that, why not just vote bush back into the whitehouse).

that having been said, i'm supporting dean. and frankly, none of the other candidates entrall me all that much, so if he doesn't get the nomination, i will vote green (unless their candidate isn't worth voting for). but on the merits and my views, i will vote who i feel would be best for the job, irregardless of their winning prospects.

to be honest, i hope more people vote green. maybe if enough of get tired of having to vote for "democrats' with our noses plugged they might actually start listening to those peons they're supposed to represent.

best t-shirt is still...

blow jobs are better than no jobs.

mr. norg,

you have been found guilty of thoughtcrime. your treasonous thoughts against our beloved leader in not supporting wholeheartedly his efforts to liberate the poor iraqi people speak volumes about the depth of your criminality. as such it has been determined that you would best serve our beloved leader and this nation after an extended re-education course on the island of cuba. officers will be dispatched post haste, resistence is futile.

that is all.

john ashcroft.

HA! jokes on you ass-croft americans CAN'T go to Cuba! loop hole loop hole, i found a loop hole!

mr Chaikin,

you have been found guilty of thoughtcrime. stay where you are, the soldiers will be over to pick you up shortly. we're the government and we can do what we want. what you fail to realize is that we have a base in cuba that is staffed with americans, real americans unlike you. since they are there, they must have gotten there somehow and since we haven't prefected teleportation, you will help us in our most noble effort to debug the software by being a guinea pig, err.. lab rat, errr. honored state hero, it would stand to reason that we have our methods of going to cuba. you need not worry, we've already stripped you of your citizenship, so you are not an american anymore, so this ban no longer applies to you. after your re-education (and assuming you survive the testing phase of our noble people relocation device) you will be re-granted citizenship and placed back into society to be a productive consumer of products.

that is all.

john ashcroft.

Who needs to be organized? Since Bushco dismissively views millions worldwide coming together to protest as a "focus group", I'd think a bunch of loose cannons showing up at random places, at random times, spouting un"patriotic" propaganda that isn't all the same message would freak them out far more.

So ... Anarchists unite! :D

while you think that this is pragmatism, i'd say that voting for someone because they're the better of two evils is a compromise that i'm not willing to take.

Ok then, don't make it. Your call, and where you live now the Green vote may not make a difference in how the "major" parties compete in 2004. But to me, as a voter in a perpetual swing state, ignoring the real differences between Gore and Bush in 2000 and casting a ballot for Nader seemed like compromising the future of the country and the world as we know it. And right now I see the stakes as being even higher. Unbelievable that that could even be possible. :(

i liked gore. sure he ran a poor campaign and i was disappointed with the poll inspired policy switching all through out his campaign, but i thought he'd make a better president than who is currently in office.

i'm going to resist the obvious bush-bashing commentary here ... :)

if i had to do it over again, i'd vote nader. seeing what the supposed "democrats" have done in the congress, i can only say good riddens. i hope they all get voted out. i didn't vote for a bunch of DINOs (democrats in name only) and i certainly didn't vote for a party that gives the power of war to the president so he can have a better bargaining position at the UN. since when did the power to make war become a chip to be used at a poker game? (which is why i will not support any of the democratic contenders that voted to support the war).

I agree altogether with your assessment of Congress, but that's Congress. Has nothing to do with Gore. I think Gore respects the Constitution too much to ask them to torch it to give a President unbridled war powers and a draconian Justice Department.

I assure you I'm not going to have a short memory about the Congressional Dems' war powers votes if and when any of them (including the current batch of candidates: Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Graham, Mosely-Braun) decide to run for President. But that in no way makes me re-assess my 2000 vote for Gore. It simply means that if any of them ever want my vote they've got a lot of explaining to do -- and I don't expect they'll be able to do it to my satisfaction. But in the absence of other candidates who can win, they might persuade me that they're better than the horse the other side is running. Especially if the "other side" is running George W. Bush. Or, in the future, someone like Jeb Bush, or Tom DeLay, or Rick Santorum, or ... (enter your dangerous Republican of choice).

the democrats are a shameful lot, unless you think that the cowardly non-recorded voice vote for the 87.5 billion handout to iraq was legislative courage (esp. given the fact that the ammendment that punished companies given contracts the defrauded the american taxpayer stiff penalties was removed >in the conference committee).

uh, no. Nothing to be proud of there, I agree. This "aid" package is a cynical gift to Bechtel and Halliburton (among others), sealed with a big kiss from Bush after being wrapped up all pretty by his lackeys in Congress. It's not going to do Iraq (or Afghanistan -- remember them?) much good, and it's doing nothing to mitigate the tension caused by US presence in Iraq -- and precious little for US soldiers trying to survive their misbegotten assignment there.

and i will only vote for those people i feel deserve my vote. (i.e I'd rather chop my own hands off than vote for lieberman, hell, if i were going to do that, why not just vote bush back into the whitehouse).

That's where we differ profoundly, because I think it's more important to improve a dire situation a bit than it is to abstain until I can vote for something totally revolutionary. (Much as I'd love to see the revolution.)

And for all Lieberman's faults -- for all the ways in which he's been a Bush lackey over the past 3 years, and for all the ways he remains a sanctimonious creep -- he nonetheless understands and upholds to a far greater degree than Bush the concepts of environmental stewardship, women's rights, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. So if worse comes to worst and they're the two major-party Presidential nominees, I'll gladly pay the price of having to tough out a Lieberman term in exchange for ending Bush's wholesale power grab.

to be honest, i hope more people vote green. maybe if enough of get tired of having to vote for "democrats' with our noses plugged they might actually start listening to those peons they're supposed to represent.

I'd love to see that happen, Bill. But I think the Green groundswell has to come from the bottom up, and not trickle down from the top -- especially without establishing a power-wielding caucus in Congress first. I'd love to see all the wishy-washy DINOs in the house and Senate kicked out on their asses in favor of Greens -- then we'd see some bipartisan wrangling over real issues, not just squabbling over minutiae while rubber-stamping anything the Republicans want.

I'll be working for a Green Congressional candidate this year, btw.

There are 2 things that could get me to vote for a hypothetical Green presidential nominee in 2004. 1) If the candidate visibly captured the imagination of the mainstream. 2) If one of the Dem candidates I like is not the Dem nominee or running mate, and s/he decides to run Green and takes a lot of Dem support with him. Then we'd see a whole different third-party scenario -- a legitimate contender, and not just a spoiler to liberal/progressive hopes for *some* improvement in 2004. In that event, I'd have no reservations at all about voting for a Green Presidential candidate.

I'm with you, where&when?

I'm not a citizen anymore? Sweet!ho the hell wants to be a citizen of this rat hole anyway? I'm movin to canada!you can keep my citizenship.find your self another "noblre state hero".

No no NO!!!. You're getting organized now!

We need spontaneous individualistic administration-annoying moments -- not a scheduled event! :)

"ignoring the real differences between Gore and Bush in 2000 and casting a ballot for Nader seemed like compromising the future of the country and the world as we know it."

Who said anything about ignoring the real differences? Of course I would much rather have had Gore win than Bush, that was never much of a question in my mind. I just can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't believe in. By the way, while we do have another year or so, three years of Bush's presidency, and the world is still standing. Not saying he's done a great job, but "compromising the future of the country and the world as we know it"?

I think all of this is why my active interest in politics is falling away. Replace the words "oral sex" with "war" and we're back at the end of Clinton's term. One side is robotically blaming the president for the fall of western civilization.

And maybe they're right about that, maybe not. It's certainly something worth debating, but that debate never actually happens. It all seems to be done for the sound bites anyways.

"I agree altogether with your assessment of Congress, but that's Congress. Has nothing to do with Gore. I think Gore respects the Constitution too much to ask them to torch it to give a President unbridled war powers and a draconian Justice Department. "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *ROTFLMAO* Like *ANY* politician, Democrat or Republican "respects the Constitution". Please, the Democrats want to force you to be good and the Republicans want to prevent you from being bad, the Constitution be damned.

Well I'll be voting libertarian again this next election. The Democrats are a scary appeasment bunch of socialist, race-baiting, power hungry, sociopaths. The Republicans are a bunch of neo-con, warmongering, hate spreading, sadomasochists.

Every so often I'm tempted to vote for the candidate I feel will bring this country further to ruin faster. Case in point, California. While I think Schwarzenegger will be a horrible governor, if he holds true to his no new taxes and pro-business approach, he might actually help the state somewhat. I would have voted against recall, just to make sure the psychotic socialist policies of the Davis administration would play out to their logical conclusion. It would be a grand way to demonstrate what would happen to the country if the Democrats held all the power at the national level.

I dislike Bush in the extreme, for ideological and personal reasons. I think he needs to go, but not be replaced by any of the yahoos the Democrats are running. If only a true conservative (something I can at least stomach) would run against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Oh well. I'm prepared to lose again this year, but I think you'll find that third parties are going to play a big role in the next election. a BIG role.

It isthe most powerful politician in thwe world and the Uk tends to go where the Us follows post Thatcher/Bush sr which is why a few years ago on "The REal World- London" one of the Londoners tried to argue that the whole world should be allowed to vote in the election for US president!

Yeah, but our votes don't even count ;-)

Gore was in no way an "evil." the true irony was tht he was more committed to environmental causes than anyone who has ever been president. This blithly calling all established politicians evil is an excuse to not think.

Who said anything about ignoring the real differences?

I did, in my first post on this thread. :) Many of the other people I know who voted for Nader essentially argued that Gore and Bush were more alike than different, and neither would take the country in the direction they wanted fast and decisively enough. While that may be true from the hardcore progressive perspective, I think the equation of Bush and Gore is blatant fallacy and I refused to buy into it.

I'm not trying to argue about your vote or condemn it, Talcott. I'm just saying I could not justify a Nader vote in my mind, for me in my swing state, much as I'd have loved to make the political statement.

By the way, while we do have another year or so, three years of Bush's presidency, and the world is still standing. Not saying he's done a great job, but "compromising the future of the country and the world as we know it"?

Yes. As a sometime Green voter I'd think you'd look at things like environmental depredation and willful ignoring of things like global warming or soil contamination, and refusal to cooperate on international conservation accords, as important. Yes, the environment was damaged before he ever took office -- but he's done nothing to help it, and through things like cuts in Superfund activity, promotion of methane coalbed drilling, and initiatives like the doublespeak "Clear Skies" has done an enormous amount of damage. Or then there's the factor of less political stability everywhere from the Middle East to North Korea. Or how about an abysmal failure, based on Bush valuing US drug corporation interests and his sweet but utterly culturally blind belief in abstinence teaching, to help stop the spread of HIV in places like Zimbabwe, where 34% of the population is infected. I don't think in terms of simply surviving four years of his policy, so much as what the changes he's made and the environmental rape he's committed will mean for the next generation or longer.

Replace the words "oral sex" with "war" and we're back at the end of Clinton's term. One side is robotically blaming the president for the fall of western civilization.

And maybe they're right about that, maybe not. It's certainly something worth debating, but that debate never actually happens. It all seems to be done for the sound bites anyways.

I'm sorry I'm coming across as that inflexible then, because I don't mean to. Although I do think getting a blow job is a lot less criminal than presiding over the military-caused deaths of thousands of foreign civilians, and the rollback of civil rights for every one of his own citizens. I agree that much of the language used on all sides is shrill, but I always try to cite concrete examples and I'm always open to debate. And I do think that if our current President was willing to cite (real) examples backing his points, if he believed in debate, and if he was less of an inflexible ideologue and had more respect for the majority of his constituency that disagrees with him on the environment, on civil rights, on the economy, and on the tactic of pre-emptive war, we'd be a better, safer nation and far less resented by the rest of the world.

Glad you found some humor in this, Andy. But really, show me an example or two of Gore all-out flying in the face of the Constitution or otherwise trying to divest the citizenry of its protections. And I dont mean his wife, I mean Al. Then maybe I'll take your argument as being based on more than a cynical stereotype -- a stereotype based on many execrable examples of ego and power-corruption run amok, I agree, but I don't think that justifies a blanket application of stereotype to every single politician everywhere.

As for the differences between the parties, I think it's close to what you said but not exact. In my view the Dems want to encourage you to be your brother's keeper, and the Republicans want to be everyone's personal-behavior minder -- and enlist a little army of fellow travellers to help them do it.

Pax.

Y'know, that might be a nice reality check for all of us here in the States. :D

i had a long response written up but decided to can it because i'm not going to convince you that making this compromise is the reason why we have this shitty two party system to begin with and you're going to convince me that voting for someone that is only marginally better than what we already have (and having to hold my nose while doing it or sarcrifice the idea that i should vote for someone that i feel would be the best candidate not the best candidate that is most likely to be elected ) is something worth doing. i can't find it in me to vote for someone just because they wear a label and can say at least i'm not that guy. i may look a lot like that guy, but really, i swear, i'm not that guy.