Does anyone else feel that they just can't vote for any candidate this year?

[luvwinnie]

That's how I feel...if I DO vote it will be a feeling of "lesser of two evils for me" and I'll go with Bush, who I voted for last time. I would LOVE to have a candidate I was passionate about, someone I truly believed in.

 

[mum4jenn]

I feel the same way.I have no idea what I am going to do. I am normally a democrat but voted for Bush last time . I guess the key issues like gay marriage stuff will be the deciding factor. I knw the president is against it totally so he will prob get my vote but I really have not decided yet.

 

[SoonerKate]

Sheila, Kerry is also against gay marriage. However, unlike Bush, he's against outlawing gay marriage through a constitutional amendment (using the argument that the constitution should be and has been historically used to grant rights, not take them away.).

I don't really like Kerry, but I like him MUCH more than Bush. Adding Edwards to the ticket kind of seals the deal for me. (Though, really, it was either vote Democrat or not at all, because there's no way I'd ever vote to keep the current administration in power.)

 

[chell]

Originally posted by luvwinnie
..."lesser of two evils for me" ...

Funny how that is how I keep hearing people refer to the election. I feel the same way. I just wish there was somewhere to go to get unbiased information on each of them.

 

[orvilleair]

I feel the same way also with both candidates. I might watch a debate or two if they schedule one. I'm tired of the "one-upmanship."

 

[Deafmedic]

I didn't like either choice in 2000. I wrote myself in as president.

 

[Phrebert]

One I don't trust, and the other really don't trust.

 

[Poohbear123]

Good one!

 

[Planogirl]

I only like one candidate and unfortunately, he's running for Vice President. I wish that the Democrats would switch.

I don't know, it's really frustrating. I can't support Bush however so I guess I know what my answer is.

 

[palmtreegirl]

No not at all, I just look at the issues and decide.

I big issue for me this election is stem cell research because my grandfather died this year of alzheimers and more recently my Dad was diagnosed with Parkinsons disease.

For the above reason, as well as many others, I'll be voting for John Kerry/ John Edwards this year.

 

[becka]

I agree with the lesser of two evils argument. That is how I felt in 2000 and it is still how I feel. Since I can't bring myself to vote for Bush then I really have only two choices: vote for Kerry or stay home. Since I do really like John Edwards (I think Kerry made a smart choice) I will probably vote for Kerry.

 

[lulugirl]

I also wish there was a candidate I felt passionate about supporting.
That said, I would sooner eat a bowl full of spiders than vote for Bush, so Kerry gets my vote.

 

[Nancy]

I said the same thing to my DH recently. I said "what do you do when there is an election and you don't feel good about voting for either of them"

I read and listen to the issues...I try to follow some of the debates here but they get so off topic and mean sometimes that it just confuses me more.

I just don't know this year...I hate feeling this way. It's important and yet I feel like not voting at all.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Me too, I can't remember the last candidate I really thought was great-maybe Bill Clinton for his first term..

This year I will be voting "against", rather than "for".

That makes me a little sad...

 

[Snowysmom]

I do not like either candidate and am disappointed the democrats could only come up with Kerry. That being said, I will vote but may write in a name or see who is running as a third party candidate other than Nader. I feel it is important to exercise the right to vote and show a good example to my kids but it is really tough this year!

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by palmtreegirl
No not at all, I just look at the issues and decide.

I big issue for me this election is stem cell research because my grandfather died this year of alzheimers and more recently my Dad was diagnosed with Parkinsons disease.

For the above reason, as well as many others, I'll be voting for John Kerry/ John Edwards this year.

You will be pleased to learn that CNN just reported that Ron Reagan Jr will speak on stem cell research at the democratic convention.

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

I am pro-life, therefore will not vote for Kerry.
I am pro-life, therefore will not vote for Bush.

Where does that leave me? All of this separation of church and state leaves me feeling oppressed at times. Not to say that I would have it any other way...but morally, I think this country is bankrupt.

 

[Hillbeans]

Boy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I've always been a Bush supporter in the past, however I feel it's just time for a change. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, however the anti-american sentiment against Bush is mind blowing.

A this point, the person who can try and get America back on it's feet gets my vote.

 

[bsears]

I forgot to add....I was waiting and waiting for Kerry to announce his running mate. I wanted it to be Clark. But when Edwards was announced, I had this feeling of "wow, this feels right". To me they just exude optimism and hope and promise for a better future. I had not anticipated reacting to them this way, but the more I see and hear of them, the better I feel about it.

 

[N.Bailey]

Where stem cell research is concerned, I guess it depends on who you wish to believe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/205ljfnl.asp

Of Stem Cells and Fairy Tales
Scientists who have been telling Nancy Reagan that embryonic stem cell research could cure Alzheimer's now admit that it isn't true.
by Wesley J. Smith
06/10/2004 3:00:00 PM

"PEOPLE NEED A FAIRY TALE," Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

Or maybe Big Biotech needs access to taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell and cloning research--private investors generally give companies engaged in these endeavors a cold shoulder--and they are using famous grief stricken families like the Reagans to do their political lifting. If true, it demonstrates a depth of insincerity and disingenuousness that is as cruel as it is unjustifiable.

Here's the story: Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a "whole brain disease," rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, "stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit

But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why? The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."

This is a scandal. Misrepresentation by omission corrupts one of the primary purposes of science, which is to provide society objective information about the state of scientific knowledge without regard to the political consequences. Such data then serves as a foundation for crucial moral analysis about whether and how controversial fields of scientific inquiry should be regulated, a debate in which all are entitled to participate. But we can't do so intelligently if we are not told the truth.

Some scientists have become alarmed by how politicized science has become. As Roger Pielke, Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado warned two years ago in the prestigious science journal Nature, "Many scientists [now] willingly adopt tactics of demagoguery and character assassination as well as, or even instead of, reasoned argument," in promoting their views. This politicization of science, he worried, has led some scientists, "not to mention lawyers and those with commercial interests," to "manipulate 'facts' to support" their advocacy, "undermining the scientific community's ability to advise policy makers." Consequently, he warned, science "is becoming yet another playing field for power politics, complete with the trappings of political spin and a win-at-all-costs attitude."

Political science has gotten so bad that a few biotech advocates have resorted to outright misrepresentation. One of the most notorious of these cases occurred in Australia where Alan Trounson, a leading stem cell researcher (as reported by the Australian on August 27, 2002) admitted that he released a misleading video to "win over politicians" during that country's Parliamentary debate over embryonic stem cell research. The video depicted a disabled rat regaining the ability to walk after being injected with embryonic stem cells--or so Trounson claimed. In actuality, the experiment used cadaveric fetal tissue from five-to-nine-week old aborted human fetuses, an altogether different approach that was irrelevant to the embryonic stem cell debate. Parliamentarians were furious, forcing a highly embarrassed Trounson to apologize abjectly.

If biotechnology advocates would allow a grieving widow to believe cruel untruths about the potential for stem cells to cure Alzheimer's, what other fairy tales are they telling us--or allowing us to believe--to win the political debate? This is a crucial question, given that the decisions we make today will have a tremendous impact on the morality of the twenty-first century. The time has more than passed for the media to do some serious digging.