I’m voting for John Kerry. Why? I’ll try to keep it simple.
I have several issues that usually decide elections for me: the environment and women’s rights (pro-choice, not pro-abortion). For me those issues have never been negotiable.
I almost voted for Bush the first time. He seemed moderate enough, although not particularly qualified to be president, and Gore was very hard to like. But Gore had the experience and the record I wanted to see in my president, so I voted for him, reluctantly.
This from a previously lifetime registered, increasingly moderate Republican. In recent years though, I’d really waffled as Republicans seemed to be moving farther and farther away from defending women’s rights and the environment. Additionally, as my own life circumstances evolved, I slowly stopped thinking of myself as one of the Republican “haves” and more of a “have not.”
Then came 9/11. And the day I watched a church service at the National Cathedral and heard righteously angry voices swell to the strains of “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” I distinctly remember thinking, “My God, he’s going to make this a holy war!” And so he has.
I don’t believe in imposing ones’s religious beliefs on others. I don’t believe in making war in the name of religion. I believe in freedom of and from religion. I believe in science and the intellect and peace. To me spiritualism, or the lack of it, is a very private, personal thing and should remain so.
Thanks for commenting on my site. I’d like to point out that Bush did not make this a religious war nor wants to nor set out to. We are fighting an enemy that happens to be of a certain religion and has twisted it. George Bush may be a very strong Christian, but he has in no way imposed it on anyone. He doesn’t say he is for limiting the number of abortions because he is quote unquote Christian, but because he finds it wrong on a moral scale. You name the enviroment as an important issue. As a conservative, so do I. But what is the biggest issue? I would take the threat of terrorism over the issue of the environment anyday. I’m not sure why that wasn’t listed as one of the “important issues” you hold dear.
Thanks for listening.
I think Bush makes his religion a much-too-visible part of what he does and why he does it. If it comforts and sustains him personally, fine. But his blind belief that he is always right because of it, that he is somehow divinely guided, is extremely worrisome to those Americans who have a much more pragmatic view of the world. I worry that his arrogant righteousness only inflames our enemies. Yes, I worry about terrorism. I know it’s there. We in Oklahoma City are all too aware of the threat. But I don’t believe George Bush is any more capable of dealing with the threat than any other president might be. I am, in fact, deeply concerned that in this era of worldwide terrorism, the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, the man who ultimately decides where our troops will go and what their objectives will be, has no active military experience. I’m a grandmother. I want the world safe for my grandson. I also want there to be a world for him that is worth having, a world that includes all the richness and diversity and wildness that my parents and grandparents enjoyed. Hell, I want there to be a world, period. Give me a better reason to fight the terrorists. Give me a better reason to defend our homeland.
P.S. Bush can believe what he wants about abortion… up to the point where he tries to legislate that belief on the rest of us. It’s not his decision to make. It’s between a woman, her doctor, and her god. His limitations on stem-cell research are based on his religious beliefs, and by all reports do not represent the majority of Americans. Another example would be his faith-based initiative… there go my tax dollars supporting the work of other people’s churches. Let their parishioners, congregations, and members support their charitable work as they always have; don’t make me do it.
Hi again Editor,
Hey, I just read your comment and I have a, hehe, “question” about your position on abortion as it relates to the way you vote (ie. for Kerry). Now, you are pro-choice and chose to vote against Bush because he may try to make abortion illegal. And, I guess, Kerry would keep abortion legal (through Roe v Wade). But, as I see it, in both cases, the Feds are legislating on this issue. Are they not both wrong in doing this? You said this is a matter between those involved and their God. So, I would think that you would not vote for either Kerry or Bush. You just gotta like the Libertarian position – that abortion is not a Federal issue and there should be no legislation on this issue at all. Libertarians believe this is a personal matter, just like you!
Hi, Niffer. Nice to see you again. Yes, I see how one could contend that the government should stay out of the abortion issue entirely. But if there were no Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be protected as a safe, legal option for all women. It would become subject to any law (federal, state, or local) that prohibited abortion and criminalized the women and physicians involved. Many such laws existed before Roe v. Wade. Women of means could and did circumvent them by traveling to places without such laws, even if that meant going abroad. However, there were many women for whom a safe, legal abortion was not an option because they lacked the money or access. Such women, if desperate enough, resorted to dangerous back alley methods like the infamous, symbolic coat hanger. Roe v. Wade simply ensures that all women, regardless of means, will have access to a safe, legal medical procedure if that is their choice.
His limitations on stem-cell research are based on his religious beliefs,….
So are his views on Murder, Robbery, Adultry, etc. But think the recent developments in alternative stem-cell research will moot the question vindicate Bush……..steve