Ralph Nadar to Run again!

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views?

Well, Nader's position is based along those lines. He is opposed to the existing system which generally boils down to "if you are neither a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat or Republican, then vote for the lesser of two evils".

In other words - vote for the least repugnant option.

Either approach is good. You can vote for your ideal candidate, knowing full well that he won't get in, or you can vote for the least unacceptable / most acceptable of the realistic candidates.

One is standing true to yoru principles, the other is actually having a direct say in who actually gets to run the country. Its a question of which you see as being more important in any given election.

I like that Nader is running - he lets people make that choice. If people who support him decide that their principles are more important than actually selecting who they want to put in the WhiteHouse, then they can choose to vote for him, and accept any knock-on consequences that may have. Alternately, they can choose not to.

Nader is giving them the choice. IT is up to the voters to decide how to use it. I think its great that he's running.

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto.

Why? They'd be the only party doing so and it would therefore put them at an unfair disadvantage.

About 60%-80% of those who will vote have already decided which party they are voting for. Its the other 20%-40% who have to be convinced - both to vote, and who to vote for.

There are plenty of Americans who will get up and vote for a Democrat in order to prevent Bush having a second term of office, and therefore it is a perfectly valid strategy to appeal to the reasoning that these people want to hear as part of an overall strategy.

None of the Democrats are running on a single-issue-which-is-to-beat-Bush ticket....but it is both the goal (he being the only opposition) and one issue in their respective campaigns...so its hardly surprising that it figures.

As the "challenging" party, you have to show why the current guy shouldn't be re-elected. You have to show where he failed and what he failed at in order to be able to claim to be able to do better.

jc

Syth

If only there was some sort of voting system where one could put down your preferences as to who gets in. Some way of transferring your votes around. If only...

bonkey

Originally posted by Syth
If only there was some sort of voting system where one could put down your preferences as to who gets in. Some way of transferring your votes around. If only...

Shameful idea. Twould never catch on

Then again...if only there was some sort of voting system where you actually voted for a candidate....rather than for a representative who isn't even legally bound to vote according to the wishes of the majority who elected him/her to cast a vote on their behalf.....

The US elections are decided on a system that has both its merits and flaws, but lets face it.....its not likely to change significantly any time soon...so wishing for PR or any other form of "better" democratic process is about as practical as wishing that there wasn't a two-party system....it has no bearing on what is....

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
Yes but sovtek, the point is, that they wouldnt have got the opportunity to do that, if nader voters went for Gore.

No they wouldn't have gotten the opportunity had Harris and Jeb struck around 100,000 people off the voter rolls in Florida. Nader actually achieves the effect of forcing the DNC to more truly represent their constituents which they are loathe to do.

It's a flaw in the system that can be cured by increasing public awareness on the need for a third political force.

...add to that the flaw of the electorial college, no federal standard, elections during the week, no turn out requirement and "winner take all".

chill

Originally posted by Earthman
It is self evident that only two parties are in the running for the Whitehouse.
It's also evident that the crazy system used for voting for that office needs tactical voting if theres to be an ousting of Mr Bush.

I agree completely. Just because there's a third candidate doesn't mean there's a third choice. If the third candidate has 0% percent chance of either getting elected or applying influence after an election then in my book that's not a choice.

Nadar is on an ego trip - with apparent indifference to the effect of his actions on the wellbeing of his fellow amercians or the rest of the world. If he has any concern about either of those groups he would not do what he is doing, which is to effectively offer a 'lift' to the Bush baby. He claims to want Bush voted out but is in fact acting against that 'claimed' wish.
He can argue till the cows come home.... but it all adds up to that no matter which way he spins it.

He couldn't be doing more for Bush if he were being paid for it...... (hmmmmm?)

Originally posted by sovtek
No they wouldn't have gotten the opportunity had Harris and Jeb struck around 100,000 people off the voter rolls in Florida. Nader actually achieves the effect of forcing the DNC to more truly represent their constituents which they are loathe to do.

That may well be so but that was in 2000.
If those voters are not back on the list in 2004, it's their own fault.
Afterall they know what happened and have had plenty time to fix it.
Fact remains Harris and jebs activities would have had no effect if Nader did not stand.
He therefore caused Bush to be elected.

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
That may well be so but that was in 2000.
If those voters are not back on the list in 2004, it's their own fault.

Maybe but most people in America aren't even aware that a major crime took place in Florida.
That doesn't explain how the millions of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 be blamed on Nader and not on the failure of Al Gore to be TRUE opposition to Bush.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
I agree completely. Just because there's a third candidate doesn't mean there's a third choice. If the third candidate has 0% percent chance of either getting elected or applying influence after an election then in my book that's not a choice.

Sorry it wasn't until candidates like Dean (and perhaps Kucinich) started getting popular support for their stark messages of opposition to both the Republicans and other "moderate" democrats that people like Kerry and Clark started also adopting those same messages (of course well before anyone knew if Nader was running or not).
Even now Kerry's main position is "I'm a real soldier".
Nader, on the other hand, has been pretty consistant and strong in his actions and words over the past few decades.
Even if he doesn't win he will push the other candidates to adopt positions closer to his.
The only thing that prevents that is the tragic logic of basing your vote on "electability" only.

Nadar is on an ego trip - with apparent indifference to the effect of his actions on the wellbeing of his fellow amercians or the rest of the world.

I don't give a damn if he stares at the mirror for hours on end. As long as his prospective policies seem sound and they have been backed up by action over his lifetime....so be it.
That's another non-issue like the now infamous blow job.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
Getting the blow job wasn't the issue, it was lying about it.

And the question to ask then is why was he asked in the first place.

TomF

Ralph Nader announcing his candidacy is only the first of many nails in the coffin containing the Democratic Party's hopes to win the presidency of the U.S. It all makes me want to run, not walk, down to my local bookie to place a very large bet that Bush will win in 2004. I'd say another good-odds bet is on whether Kerry (if nominated) will carry any State besides Massachusetts. Bet early before Kerry begins his meltdown.

The newest nail is this story (quoted in http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk11.htm)

"NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

TomF

This column by Bill Clinton's former political guru makes me confident that the odds down at Paddy Powers will be sky-high against George W. Bush's re-election as U.S. president in November, but if you don't act soon before American voters get a look and a listen at JF'nK, the odds will nose-dive. I really believe this is the betting opportunity of a lifetime. Borrow every cent you can, place your bets on Bush getting re-elected now before it's too late, and "this time next year, boy, we'll all be millionaires!"

March 3, 2004:
"The [U.S.] Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win.
...
Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be. [Edwards] is not the extreme liberal that [Kerry] is and has not had 20 years in the Senate to demonstrate how out of touch he is with American values and ideas.
...
In the coming weeks, Bush will hammer at Kerry until we look back and wonder why we ever thought the Massachusetts senator could have won in the first place.
...
By then, of course, it will be too late. The nominating process is so frontloaded that the Democrats will be stuck with the flawed Kerry candidacy for months as he slowly twists in the wind."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19568.htm
by Dick Morris

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
This column by Bill Clinton's former political guru makes me confident that the odds down at Paddy Powers will be sky-high against George W. Bush's re-election as U.S. president in November, but if you don't act soon before American voters get a look and a listen at JF'nK, the odds will nose-dive. I really believe this is the betting opportunity of a lifetime. Borrow every cent you can, place your bets on Bush getting re-elected now before it's too late, and "this time next year, boy, we'll all be millionaires!"

This reads to me as "buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't lose because everyone's going to buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't lose because everyone's going to buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't....

ad infinitum.

Maybe you're right, but I'd rather give the US public some credit.

jc

mycroft

What everyone is forgetting is Kerry needs to pick a running mate.

The level of debate between Edwards and Kerry has been polite disagreement, theres no reason to assume that Kerry will pick Edwards has his vice president.

Theres a dream ticket, liberal decorated vietnam vet, and a charming,left center southern who's father was an unemployed steelworker, edwards through hard work and grit built a sucessful legal practice.

V

Charmless incoherant, C average, draft dodging, polluting, deficit building, warmongering idiot. And his vice president who aside from his heartattacks and ultra convervatism has recieved tens of millions from halliburt a company so corrupt this administration has finally been forced to investigate it......

TomF

Well, maybe the bet isn't looking as good as I had hoped. On the Paddy Powers website this morning, under "Novelties" and "U.S. Presidential Election", the "Party to win 2004 US Presidential Election" odds for the Republican Party (Bush) to win are 1-2, which I think means a winning bet of €1 would pay €0.50 and you'd get your €1 back too. For the Democratic Party (Kerry might be the nominee) it is 6-4, which I think means a winning bet of €1 would pay €1.50, also getting your €1 back too. So it looks as though Bush is the favourite and my scheme for becoming a millionaire may be flawed.

I freely admit that I might be wrong about the interpretation of the odds ("prices" on Paddy Powers' page). Maybe I should ring my brother-in-law who used to do the calculations and chalk up the numbers in a bookie's shop in Norn Iron.

xm15e3

Originally posted by mycroft

Theres a dream ticket, liberal decorated vietnam vet, and a charming,left center southern who's father was an unemployed steelworker, edwards through hard work and grit built a sucessful legal practice.

For Republicans, this indeed would be a dream. Kerry's war record is VERY suspect. It appears he got his Silver Star for abandoning his post to dash out and kill a VC wounded by a .50 BMG. ie, he killed some poor dude that was missing a limb. This is all according to his own After Action Report. Bush won't touch it, but there are MANY veterans who will. Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, regardless of his background, trial lawyers are not popular in the US. Kinda like hookers. Even their clients don't respect them.

Speaking of trial Lawyers. In 2000, Ralph Nader almost made up for destroying the Corvair and Shelby Cobra. I love the man, I hope he runs again.

Any Corvairs find their way to Ireland. Dr. Porsche said they were the only American car that handled well. Porsche, unlike Nader, had a drivers license.

mycroft

Kerry's war record is VERY suspect.

Incorrect read a very good article on that here

Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Kerry didn't chicken out, he then used that loophole to go to the senate and protest and testify. Attacking Kerry's war record or his behaviour in Vietnam is just going to make republicans look bad. For F**ks sake Mc Cain likes and respect the man.

Edwards is immensely popular, seen as a rags to riches, hard working trial lawyer, yeah it's personal injury, and that might hurt, but all you need to do is start mentioning savings and loans scandals and halliburt and suddenly Bush and Cheneys pre politics days look less rossy

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman


But I did hear him clearly state two things
One was that in the 2000 election, it was potential democratic voters who made up the majority of naders 3% and that this lost Gore three states.

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

I read the other day (will find a link soon) that millions of registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. I would suspect that they had more to do with Gore "loosing" than Nader. That's if you buy into the notion that the Supreme Court decision was legitimate.

sovtek

Originally posted by xm15e3
For Republicans, this indeed would be a dream. Kerry's war record is VERY suspect. It appears he got his Silver Star for abandoning his post to dash out and kill a VC wounded by a .50 BMG. ie, he killed some poor dude that was missing a limb. This is all according to his own After Action Report. Bush won't touch it, but there are MANY veterans who will. Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, regardless of his background, trial lawyers are not popular in the US. Kinda like hookers. Even their clients don't respect them.

Speaking of trial Lawyers. In 2000, Ralph Nader almost made up for destroying the Corvair and Shelby Cobra.

Ah yes... the Corvair case. That's GM's shining moment when they tried to bribe/blackmail (with prositutes and whatnot) so as to keep him from bringing a case that the Corvair was unsafe. Nader didn't go for it.

xm15e3

Originally posted by mycroft

Kerry didn't chicken out, he then used that loophole to go to the senate and protest and testify. Attacking Kerry's war record or his behavior in Vietnam is just going to make republicans look bad. For F**ks sake Mc Cain likes and respect the man.[/B]

Nice love fest. Sorry Man, Kerry aint no war hero. Don't worry, it won't be "The Republicans" that bring this up. It's his own record, and veterans of combat units that will hang him. This is all very relevant, btw, we sure the hell wouldn't want Lt. Calley as president. And if Calley was running, his "war record" would be a major issue. What Kerry did, IMO, was actually worse.

He got 3 minor wounds after 4 months in a combat area and applied to be transferred as an aid on the east coast. Only after the transfer did he requested to be released from his active duty commitment to pursue politics.

BTW, his "Winter Solder" testimony was completely bogus.

McCain likes and respects the man? I'll find the link later, but McCain actually hates the SOB for providing aid and comfort to his Vietnamese captors. They used Kerry's false testimony while interrogating/tormenting McCain and others.

Winter Solder fraud:
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/winter_soldier.htm#WINTER%20SOLDIER

Lt. Kerry at War:
http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15.htm

Sen Kerry with Vietnam:
http://vietpage.com/archive_news/politics/2003/Sep/15/0005.html

Originally posted by mycroft

Edwards is immensely popular, seen as a rags to riches, hard working trial lawyer, yeah it's personal injury, and that might hurt, but all you need to do is start mentioning savings and loans scandals and halliburt and suddenly Bush and Cheney's pre politics days look less rossy

Immensely Popular? He only won in Vermont and SC. Put it this way, people who trust trial lawyers are going to vote for Nader. All that stuff on Bush and Cheney didn't get (enough) traction in 2000, I don't see it being a factor now.

I don't think it matters who they run. In Nov. The anti Bush vote will get about 40%. The ONLY way the Dems can win this one is if they get the GOB base to stay home. And that is the problem, Lieberman was the only Dem candidate that would not energize the GOP base (Heck, I like the man). There is nothing that scares the GOB base more than Kerry, Edwards, or Nader getting into office.

And Kerry, as above, has a past that will turn off both the pacifists, and the old FDR/Reagan Democrats. Did I mention Kerry was a Skull and Bones just like W. Nader is a nice vote splitter.

sovtek

Originally posted by xm15e3
Nader is a nice vote splitter. [/B]

Being that more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, Gore actually won and the Supreme Court selected GWB...Nader isn't going to loose anybody the election. Oh yeah and the voter turned this time is expected to be much higher.
Nader isn't an ambulance chaser by any stretch of the imagination.

xm15e3

Originally posted by sovtek
Being that more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, Gore actually won and the Supreme Court selected GWB...Nader isn't going to loose anybody the election. Oh yeah and the voter turned this time is expected to be much higher.
Nader isn't an ambulance chaser by any stretch of the imagination.

Republican's always pick up registered Democrats. Reagen even started off as a Democrat. People and parties change, and they don't always change how they register. However, Nader will not pick up ANY GOP votes, he does appeal to some DEMs. Those votes come from somewhere. And in the case of Florida, it didn't take many.

As for the SC handing Bush the election. All they did was uphold "equal protections", the DNC didn't want a state wide recount because the 10K or so Pan Handle voters, and up to 2/3 oversees military votes would have been counted. There are a reason they tried to only recount Dade and Palm Beach. The media recounts that went on after the election showed Bush won the popular (Florida) vote.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000829

The Electoral College is there for a reason, as are state election laws.


BTW, Clinton was asked about Monica because he was a defendant in a civil suit. He suborned perjury, and was rightfully impeached.

And Nader is THE "Ambulance Chaser". The guy doesn't know how to drive, doesn't know anything about physics, and definitely doesn't care. The Corvair highlighted the inability of the average American to handle anything close to a mid-engine sports car. As road drivers, we suck. Like Doc Porsche said "..Americans just want to wear the close". People lost it in in Corvairs by failing to maintain recommended tire pressure then taping the breaks when the car oversteared (Like a 911, VW Bug, ect). Beyond that, the car was very successful in SCCA events. Lawyers lie, Physics don't.

Check out www.fnader.com.

sovtek

Originally posted by xm15e3
Republican's always pick up registered Democrats. Reagen even started off as a Democrat. People and parties change, and they don't always change how they register.

So if I'm a registered Democrat and I vote for Nader then Nader is a spoiler, If however I am a Democrat and I vote for Bush...????? :rolleyes:

However, Nader will not pick up ANY GOP votes, he does appeal to some DEMs.

Are you basing this on simply a GOP or who the GOP is this time around. Nader got votes from both sides last time. More Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. If Bush's standing holds like it is now then the spoiler would be for Bush...not Kerry.
Nader may even help Kerry/DNC get a somewhat principled stand that apathetic possible voters are looking for as well as help to bring out more voters in general.
This is not the 2000 election.

As for the SC handing Bush the election. All they did was uphold "equal protections"

Yea the "equal protection" to give Bush the presidency. It's a great peace of work. It even goes so far as to say that it's ruling is not a precedent to decide future cases. As well Thomas and Renquist had conflict of interest and should have recused themselves.

the DNC didn't want a state wide recount because the 10K or so Pan Handle voters, and up to 2/3 oversees military votes would have been counted.

Ignoring the late ones that were counted anyway.

The media recounts that went on after the election showed Bush won the popular (Florida) vote.

And they forgot to mention the 100,000 fake list of expunged voters from Florida.

The Electoral College is there for a reason, as are state election laws.

And that's why Nigeria offered to send vote monitors.

BTW, Clinton was asked about Monica because he was a defendant in a civil suit. He suborned perjury, and was rightfully impeached.

I guess that's why it went to trial and he was also found guilty...
It also doesn't answer why he was asked about a consensual relationship.

And Nader is THE "Ambulance Chaser". The guy doesn't know how to drive, doesn't know anything about physics, and definitely doesn't care. The Corvair highlighted the inability of the average American to handle anything close to a mid-engine sports car. As road drivers, we suck. Like Doc Porsche said "..Americans just want to wear the close". People lost it in in Corvairs by failing to maintain recommended tire pressure then taping the breaks when the car oversteared (Like a 911, VW Bug, ect). Beyond that, the car was very successful in SCCA events. Lawyers lie, Physics don't.

I guess GM's case was so airtight that they didn't have to stoop to trying to blackmail Nader.
Compared to any politician Nader's an angel.
Physics don't lie, car manufactures do

Check out www.fnader.com.

I've already done this dance with a Corvair nut already. It's sounding about the same. You don't happen to go to www.wfaa.com?

xm15e3

Originally posted by sovtek
So if I'm a registered Democrat and I vote for Nader then Nader is a spoiler, If however I am a Democrat and I vote for Bush...????? :rolleyes:

I've already done this dance with a Corvair nut already. It's sounding about the same. You don't happen to go to www.wfaa.com?

How do you figure anyone from who votes GOP would vote Nader? IMO there is no cross over ideology. As for vote splitting, voting for the other party is normal good democracy. A weak third party candidate, like Nader, can only split votes. IMO, there should be a run off election so that only two choices remain on the final ballet. 34% should not be enough to win.

There are also many old Democrats that aren't really democrats, parts of the old DNC (Like Reagan) changed parties. Many didn't bother changing registration. They really aren't democrats.

Never been to wfaa.com. What are they? As for the Corvair nut, you should listen to him. He knows more about it then either of us, and much more than Nader. Nader doesn't even drive.

Originally posted by sovtek

Nader may even help Kerry/DNC get a somewhat principled stand that apathetic possible voters are looking for as well as help to bring out more voters in general.
This is not the 2000 election.

A vote for nader helps the status quo as nader wont win.
The number of people who vote for Nader could topple Bush though if they voted for Kerry instead of Nader.
Would that be a bad means to an end?

Or is it better to keep the lesser of two buffoons out?? ie is it better to keep Bush in?? Is that what you want, when you have the power to help do the opposite??

Which is effectively what a vote for nader would do if the vote is split tight enough between Kerry and Bush.

bonkey

I have a question...

Is there any American-registered voter on these discussions who is insisting Kerry won' t win who isn't going to vote Republican themselves???

Just curious as to whether there's anyone offering a, shall we say, less partisan argument.

jc

xm15e3

Originally posted by bonkey
I have a question...

Is there any American-registered voter on these discussions who is insisting Kerry won' t win who isn't going to vote Republican themselves???

Just curious as to whether there's anyone offering a, shall we say, less partisan argument.

jc

Not so much that he won't win, or that he can't win, just that his past can be used to undermine his support. Him winning depends of Bush running a terrible campaign, or something REALLY bad happening in Iraq. The former is Kerry's best chance, IMO.

xm15e3

Not that this reporter's opinion is fact. And, the NY Post leans to the right.

From:http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/19828.htm

March 5, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - In the first poll since John Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination, Kerry and President Bush are tied while independent Ralph Nader has captured enough support to affect the outcome, validating Democrats' fears.
The Republican incumbent had the backing of 46 percent, Kerry 45 percent and Nader, the 2000 Green Party candidate who entered the race last month, was at 6 percent in the survey conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Bush and the four-term Massachusetts senator, who emerged as the nominee Tuesday after a string of primary-race wins, have been running close, or Kerry has been ahead in most recent polls that did not include Nader.

Since Nader entered the race Feb. 22, campaign strategists and political analysts have been trying to assess the impact of another presidential bid by the consumer activist whom Democrats blame for Al Gore's loss in 2000.

Four years ago, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering only 2.7 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.

The poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday as Kerry captured nine of 10 Super Tuesday elections. AP

Sand

Hmmmmm, seems the bookies arent too far wrong with their odds - Kerry seems to have a lot of skeletons lying around in his closet from whats appearing about him now.

Hes got 3 purple hearts but wont let the medical records about those wounds out? Hes described the soldiers in Vietnam as operating like Gengis Khan with widespread knowledge and approval throughout the ranks - and yet is cosy with allying himself with the same people hes disparging - arent all these veterans hes hanging out with war crinimals by his own account? He made a big show of throwing medals away - but unlike the veterans who accompanied him he didnt have the commitment to actually throw away his own? Hes apparently voted against pretty much every significant US military project ...such as the Apache and Abrams if I heard correctly - weapons which ensured the coalition literally overran the Iraqi Army recently - and is rated as having the most liberal senate voting record, which is not going to play well. As for political dirty dealings, he cant go on about Cheney and Halliburton because he was lobbying for improved trade relation with Vietnam when his cousin was bringing together a deal to build a deep water port in Vietnam...coincidence?

Bush only started his campaign yesterday - and whilst he may have blundered with the editing of the ad it wont doom him I think - and hes got all of the above to play with? Kerry running, what 45% now? Once the republicans wind up their machine it might be an absolute thrashing they give - The Democrats hope is to get out all the people who hate Bush, but if Kerry is defined by what hes done above then will they be so motivated to replace Bush with someone whoseseen to be just as corrupt?

Is there any sites which detail and compare Kerry and Bushs polices in terms of foreign policy/trade - which is what is the main interest to us ( well me anyway )?
Is there that much difference between them - Kerry is supposed to have protectionist leanings and Bush brought in those steel tarriffs before the EU forced him to remove them. Kerry voted in favour of the Iraq war and Bush initiated it...

Just wondering where they differ outside of rhetoric....