it's not you I'm looking at...

Unfortunately, that time has passed. There was a set of hopefuls with different ideas about the issues and why we should vote for them, and who was really paying attention? Between voter apathy and candidates spending their energy attacking each other, we're stuck with a race between 2 rolling-in-dough politicos who are going to owe many favors (over the requests of the masses) if they get to sit in the big chair next year. This is the ABBA election (anyone but Bush again) whether we like it or not. I don't know who's happy about having to choose the lesser of 2 evils, but there are alot of us who can't take the lies, hubris, corruption, and devastating consequences of the current administration. It's pathetic how few of us actually vote, and I suspect the sign-hangers are trying to reach the fed-up yet apathetic market, who, irony of ironies, actually could make a difference if they got off their duffs and voted.

If voting the current cabal out and replacing it with -nobody at all- were an option available to me, I would pick it. If we should need to deploy the military, let Congress _declare war_, just like the Constitution says. Apart from illegally sending our armed forces around the world, exactly what irreplaceble and essential job does the president perform?

Oh, and sometimes infantile logic makes a lot of sense. If somebody is poking you in the eye with a hot knitting needle, do you say "What America needs right now is soothing eye drops, and soft white bandages", or "Hey! Stop poking me with a damn needle, you jackass"?

Yeah, but what do you do when the poking stops? Run around screaming with blood gushing from your face? :-)

There's a time to react and a time to respond, and I'm with Hansen - I'm done listening to reactive temper-tantrums and I'm ready to hear about real alternatives to police action abroad and a police state at home.

I don't understand what the question is. "What are Kerry's policies?" We already know what Bush's are. Do you agree or disagree? We would be lucky to have a rational discussion with feasible variations on solving our problems. But we are in triage here. We have to stop the hemorrhaging before we get to think about how many fingers get saved. (Cuz if we don't, they're all toast.) Re Kerry's policies, the best advice he's being given is "Don't say anything, let Iraq bury Bush and keep smiling and waving." This is what we're dealing with no matter how much it sucks. The 5 of us who select leaders based on policies and qualifications have to go find that info for ourselves (and it's out there), because the rest of the populace is eagerly getting their trigger fingers ready for the next beauty pageant, be it Ahnold or Pete Coors.

How can we be sure we have the correct information about any of what you are saying/commenting on? If you believe what you hear or read and form your opinions based on that information, then you are no better than these blathering idiots getting paid to run our country into debt and destruction. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Why not just jump on the bandwagon or platform that serves our best interests? Be informed, and don't limit yourself to just one source. If there aren't any universal truths out there, then we're all in a heap of trouble anyway; more trouble than can be affected or solved by politics and politicians anyway. Never forget, ignorance is bliss.

Party on Hansen's blog. I got my beer!

LL - Not sure if I was asking a question or wishing that the rebuttal to the Bush adminsistration could happen at a higher level than the kindergarten sandbox.

There are a lot of purported sources of information, but they tend to be lazy (mainstream media) or kooks who sit on the left or right sides of the fence - there are plenty of both. Like Mulder said, the truth is out there.

I think I have a pretty good idea what Kerry's policies are - he's been vocal enough about Iraq. He really doesn't disagree much with Bush on that front - he has a record and op-eds to prove it. At the end of the day, if Kerry wants to win, he's gonna have to be more than a Bush rebound fling. He has to give people something to be for.

Gimp - That comment is a work of art.

I think that's part of the problem...(I may sound like I'm disagreeing, but I'm not)...Kerry DOESN'T have to do more than be an alternative to Bush. He should be, but I'm not sure he has to be. People seem to be squarely divided. Nader made a good point about this on Salon a few days ago (how the Dems aren't requiring anything of Kerry than just to win)...laloque will spew more on her own turf when she gets a little time. MH, where's the "mildly" political post you refer to??

Kerry, like any other career politician, really has no big ideas or agendas for change. Whatever it was that got him involved in politics years ago is gone. Once you get to national office, you start to realize that the whole thing is just a sham. That's part of the problem with Bush- he has relatively little political experience, so he was able to be influenced by all these creepy radical fundamentalist conservatives. That wouldn't have mattered much, until the power boost he got from 9/11. Silly ideas like taking away our civil liberties and starting unecessary wars wouldn't have gotten very far in August of 2001. Rather like Clinton, actually, who came in with some pretty radical notions (remember Hilary's heath care plan?), that all got beat down pretty quickly. In the end, the stalemate between Congress and the president meant that nothing much got done, and we ended up with several years of fantastic economic growth.

The best thing any of these guys can do for us is to leave us alone. If the only way they can do it is through endless fillibustering and vetos, then that's fine. Even when they have a seemingly good idea, they find a way to turn it into crap. I'd be happy if the federal goverment took care of the military and foreign policy, and left everything else to the states. You know, kind of like the constitution says it's supposed to do.

So, I don't really care what Kerry stands for, or what his big ideas are, because I know that none of those ideas will ever become reality. All I really want from him is get us out of Iraq as gracefully as possible, fulfill our promise to rebuild Afghanistan, capture or kill the assholes who paid for and organized 9/11, and return our domestic policies (budget deficit, civil liberties, environmental laws, etc.) to status quo 1999. With the exception of getting back civil liberties, I don't think any of those things will be too difficult to get through even a Republican congress. There are lots of other things I'd like to see, but I don't expect him to be able to deliver them. Good enough I say.

Hansen, here I come out of right field and 1993. You are smart enough know the signs are just the latest example of how much easier it is to complain about something than fix it. Given the degree of hatred between the two sides, I'm with the guy who hopes that they just leave us alone and don't make too much of a mess.

Safe to say that neither of these two guys is a giant of his generation (as evidenced by the decision to enter politics). Bush is decisive which is sort of refreshing except that when he tries to explain what he's doing he sounds like he's 12. For those of us who love the language, it's pretty tough to stomach all the cliches and stumbles even if you agree with him. I think his speechwriters have pretty much given up the ghost. Kerry looks like a Democrat Bob Dole - just a guy whose been sitting around waiting his turn who has nothing to contribute but years of sitting around waiting his turn.

Political lawn signs are pretty much the lowest form of communication anyway so we all just have to ignore (or steal) them for like six more months.

Dave