here is a over view of all of teh canidates.

Wesley Clark:
A retired four-star general and former supreme commander of NATO, Wesley Clark entered the race for the Democratic nomination on September 17, 2003. The West Point graduate, Rhodes Scholar and former CNN military analyst led U.S. and allied forces in the 1999 air war in Kosovo. The race marks Clark's first attempt at elected office.

Howard Dean:
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean became the first Democrat to enter the race when he filed papers stating his candidacy for president with the Federal Election Commission on May 31, 2002. He held a formal announcement ceremony June 23, 2003. His campaign gained momentum when it was reported that he led the Democrats in fund raising in the second and third quarters of 2003. On December 9, 2003, Dean received another boost when former Vice President Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic nominee, endorsed him

John Edwards:
Freshman North Carolina Sen. John Edwards entered the race January 2, 2003. A millionaire who made his fortune as a trial lawyer, Edwards is one of two Southerners in the race. Edwards was considered a possible running mate for Vice President Al Gore in his unsuccessful bid for the White House in 2000.

About Dick Gephardt:
Former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt launched his presidential campaign February 19, 2003. Gephardt -- a Democratic congressman for 26 years -- also sought the party's nomination in 1988.

John Kerry:
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was the second Democrat to enter the race, announcing December 1, 2002, that he would form an exploratory committee for a presidential run. First elected to the Senate in 1984, the 60-year-old Kerry is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He considered a presidential run in 2000.

Dennis Kucinich:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich entered the race February 18, 2003, by filing papers to form a presidential exploratory committee. Kucinich, a four-term congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, is running on an unabashedly liberal platform.

Joe Lieberman:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the vice presidential nominee on the 2000 Democratic ticket, announced January 13, 2003, that he is running for the White House in 2004. Lieberman, a moderate Democrat, was the first Jewish candidate to be nominated for vice president and would be the first elected president.

Al Sharpton:
The Rev. Al Sharpton entered the race January 22, 2003, by filing papers to form an exploratory committee for a presidential run in 2004. The Democratic activist is the head of the National Action Network, a civil rights group. He ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 1994 and New York City mayor in 1997.

George W. Bush::
President Bush took the first formal step in his re-election bid May 16, 2003, by filing his candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, a move that allowed him to start building his campaign structure and raise funds. Bush is expected to try to remain above the political fray, enjoy the benefits of an incumbent with no primary opponent and wait to formally declare his candidacy.

Ok guys who do u want to win.
Why do u want _______ to win state soem reasons why?

Ok guys who do u want to win. Wesley Clark
I want Wesley Clark to win beacause i liek his values and i think he can get our country back to how it was before Bush.


Affirmative Action Supports affirmative action policies

Gay marriage Backs civil unions with full rights; leave "marriage" label for states

Gays in the military End "don't ask, don't tell"; touts UK ban on all sexual misconduct

Gay adoption Notes diversity of families; for equal rights for same-sex couples

Hate crime legislation Bolster federal protections against hate crimes; ban discrimination


Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

National Missile Defense Questions NMD; would invest in research and development

Increase size of Army Consider increasing size of armed forces

Program budgets Boost benefits, pay for members of "over-committed" military



Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

Drilling in ANWR Opposes oil exploration in Arctic refuge

Alternative fuels Favors 20% of electricity generated by renewable energy by 2020

Energy policy Update electrical grid; diversify energy sources; engage other nations

Gas mileage requirements Bolster fuel efficiency standards; promote hybrid vehicles


Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

Drug costs Allow purchase of low-cost prescription drugs from Canada

Medicare solvency Competitive bidding for services; cheaper drugs to lower costs

Prescription drugs benefit For comprehensive, meaningful, affordable benefit for seniors

Nationalized health care Insurance for all through 22; make it cheap to buy federal insurance

Sue HMOs Against subsidizing HMOs by forcing people to join, lose options


Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

Enemy combatants Allow to have lawyers; prosecute in international criminal courts

Patriot Act Says act goes too far; calls for thorough, open review

Immigration Says he's "very pro-immigration," bring in world's elite to spur U.S.

Intelligence agencies Do not mix intelligence, policy; conduct thorough reviews


Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

War in Iraq Slams unilateralism, poor planning; empower Iraqis, other nations

Iraqi reconstruction Invest time, resources so reconstruction, reform succeeds

Pre-emption policy Reserve right to strike, but military action always last resort

Afghanistan Resolve "unfinished business" militarily, economically

Middle East Enhance role of Egypt, Jordan, other neighboring nations in talks


Compare this with all candidates

TOPIC POSITION

Abortion Supports a woman's right to an abortion

Death penalty Re-evaluate every death row case; states have right to impose

Drug policy Against decriminalizing marijuana

Gun control Close gun show loophole; ban assault weapons; use gun-buying data

Education reform Universal preschool; invest in teachers, facilities; tuition grants

Supreme Court Lauds Breyer; says he would appoint moderate justices


TOPIC POSITION

Social Security No specific plan; opposes increasing retirement age

State fiscal crisis Give immediate help to local governments facing fiscal crises

Tax cuts Calls Bush cuts for rich irresponsible; would close corporate loopholes

Budget deficits Balance budget; lower long-term public debt

Job creation Incentives to keep jobs in U.S.; target manufacturing, high-tech

This was done back in November: http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15085&highlight=presidential+race

Although I guess people could have changed their mind since then, so a new poll could be helpful...

I chose Clark only because I think he has the best chance of beating Bush - otherwise my pick would be Gephardt. Fortunately for my indecision, by the time Florida's primary rolls around the Demcratic nominee will likely be decided already.

I really don't want bush to win. I don't like how he brings all of his religious beliefs in to office. And those beady eyes its like he up to know good.

I say we need a "None of the above" option on the ballot paper.

Just once, it'd be nice to be able to vote for someone you actually WANT in the White House, rather than voting for the person whom you would least like NOT to see there.

Originally posted by eccles
I say we need a "None of the above" option on the ballot paper.

Just once, it'd be nice to be able to vote for someone you actually WANT in the White House, rather than voting for the person whom you would least like NOT to see there.

couldn't have said it better myself...

My personal choice (although he is not running nor is he on the list) would be Colin Powell

I'll take anyone over shrub. Four more years of his cabal ruling (not governing, there is a difference) will take centuries to clean up.

If there was an "Anybody but Bush" option, it would've gotten my vote.

Originally posted by eccles
I say we need a "None of the above" option on the ballot paper.

Just once, it'd be nice to be able to vote for someone you actually WANT in the White House, rather than voting for the person whom you would least like NOT to see there.

Who would you like? I have a feeling that people such as yourself, who complain about the choices, wouldn't like anyone that's running just because you're cynical or don't like politics. I could be wrong of course.

Interesting poll. Does this mean RX-8 drivers in general don't like Bush? Or that conservatives don' hang around web forums? In the Hubble thread, Bush got dissed pretty badly and no one stood up for him except one barely-literate Texan. Is there actually a hope of overthrowing Bush in November?

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
Interesting poll. Does this mean RX-8 drivers in general don't like Bush? Or that conservatives don' hang around web forums?

Well in the poll I started back in November, Bush lead with 52% after 81 votes when people stopped voting and the thread fell down into the pit of threads past. So it looks like maybe the forum has moved away from Bush somewhat, although there's only about 25 votes in this one so far so it's quite early.

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Who would you like? I have a feeling that people such as yourself, who complain about the choices, wouldn't like anyone that's running just because you're cynical or don't like politics. I could be wrong of course. Who would I like? I'll know him (or her) when I see him. Cynical? How can one not be cynical when corporate backers and lobby groups have such enormous say in the way the country is run?

Originally posted by eccles
Who would I like? I'll know him (or her) when I see him. Cynical? How can one not be cynical when corporate backers and lobby groups have such enormous say in the way the country is run?


It is true that the corporate world is basically running the country right now under the Bush administration - but all of the Democratic candidates have spoken out about this fact, and claim to be free of corporate influence and vow to stop the special interests from running Washington. Do you not believe them?

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Democratic candidates have spoken out about this fact, and claim to be free of corporate influence and vow to stop the special interests from running Washington. Do you not believe them? I'll believe it when I see it. (Yeah, I'm a true cynic. :p)

Wow! Bush is leading! I did not expect that. Why would you vote for a person who takes away your freedom ? For those who don't know what I am talking about, look up the "patriot act". The UN should intervene and free the US !

This poll doesn't say anything. Your voting population pool is biased. The sample pool can:
1. Buy a 30K car and
2. Have access to the internet.

I'm pro Bush. I would scare me having a "peace loving" democrat sitting in the WH during a time of war. Bush has surrounded himself with the right people. Imagine Al Gore as president during the attack.:eek:

The person resonsible for the attack on the twin towers is Bill Clinton (D). He did not take decisive action during terrorist attacks during his presidency. He was to busy getting his D**k sucked by an intern and lying about it under oath.

Anybody else, a General, and Admiral, or a CEO of a company would have been fired on the spot for taking advantage of a subaltern and then lying about it. That speaks plenty of his integrity. The economy did well during his presidency because George Bush set it up for him. Clinton just got lucky, literally. He saved money by closing military bases and bringing the military and intelligence to its knees. I can't believe this guy got elected twice.

Mt two cents

Originally posted by desmo996
This poll doesn't say anything. Your voting population pool is biased. The sample pool can:
1. Buy a 30K car and
2. Have access to the internet.

I'm pro Bush. I would scare me having a "peace loving" democrat sitting in the WH during a time of war. Bush has surrounded himself with the right people. Imagine Al Gore as president during the attack.:eek:

The person resonsible for the attack on the twin towers is Bill Clinton (D). He did not take decisive action during terrorist attacks during his presidency. He was to busy getting his D**k sucked by an intern and lying about it under oath.

Anybody else, a General, and Admiral, or a CEO of a company would have been fired on the spot for taking advantage of a subaltern and then lying about it. That speaks plenty of his integrity. The economy did well during his presidency because George Bush set it up for him. Clinton just got lucky, literally. He saved money by closing military bases and bringing the military and intelligence to its knees. I can't believe this guy got elected twice.

Mt two cents

1. I agree with you that this poll is not representing the average american and therefore not very usefull.

2. Clinton is just as bad as Bush, but he is far better educated. However, this did not help you are right.

3. If you would fire everybody who has sex, then the white house would be empty. He just got caught. So what ? Politics are not about sex. Would you fire your doctor because he got a blow job ? No !

4. Bush has done a great job so far: the dollar is at it's lowest rate for a long time, unemployment has gone up ... just to name a few desasters he has done to the american economy.

5. Bush has taken away the freedom americans used to have. Please look up what the patriot act is about and you will see.

Let's hope Bush won't be re-elected.

No one who WANTS to be president should be allowed to run for that position.

It's how you ensure power hungry greedy assholes get elected.

NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Only thing I like about Bush is his foreign policy. His domestic plans suck and are damaging.. pandering to the illegal immigrants for votes? Piss off....

Originally posted by qberror

3. If you would fire everybody who has sex, then the white house would be empty. He just got caught. So what ? Politics are not about sex. Would you fire your doctor because he got a blow job ? No !


I knew someone was going to reply to the sex thing. It is not a question of sex. He could have as much sex as he wanted, Kennedy did. The problem is that he had sex with someone that worked for him. He was in a position of power and he took advantage of it (Sexual Harrasment Lawsuit?). I'm not attacking his morality (Sex), his ethical behaviour was wrong. To make matters worse, he lied about it, under oath. Any other attorney would have been disbarred for that act.

Originally posted by qberror

4. Bush has done a great job so far: the dollar is at it's lowest rate for a long time, unemployment has gone up ... just to name a few desasters he has done to the american economy.


He's trying to recover the damage (lack of action) that Clinton did. To truly judge Bush we'll have to wait 4 years to see results from his economic changes.

Maybe Clinton got caught with his fly open but during his years at the WH the USA were seen as more friendly to the world (yes, there is a world outside the States) and were playing by the rules of the Planet. Now it is more like Bush feels he is the ruler of the planet, that is not how it should be. Don't think that 9-11 wouldn't have happened had Bush been there 4 years before.

Originally posted by f1michel
Maybe Clinton got caught with his fly open but during his years at the WH the USA were seen as more friendly to the world (yes, there is a world outside the States) and were playing by the rules of the Planet. Now it is more like Bush feels he is the ruler of the planet, that is not how it should be. Don't think that 9-11 wouldn't have happened had Bush been there 4 years before.

I agree with you. Just to name a few known facts:

KOYOTO DOCUMENT - an aggreement of almost all countries in the world to reduce CO2 emmissions (to prevent the ozone layer diminishing). Clinton signed it - Bush said: we dont need that. forgot what the us signed. I am the boss and we won't stand to our word.

IRAQ WAR - the UN was against it. Bush said: we dont care. I am the boss and we will do what I want.

PATRIOT ACT - Bush's idea! Hey I am the boss and US citizen have no right for freedom if I decide so. (People can be locked up in prison without ever seeing a lawyer! wow and we are writing the year 2004! impressive! back to the middle ages...)

Obviously people don't know who they voted for and who they are going to vote for. Here some additional information on what Bush has done to the freedom in the US:

The actions of the government have been shrouded in a cloak of secrecy that is incompatible with democratic government. Hundreds of non-citizens have been rounded up and detained, many for months, in violation of constitutional protections, judicial decisional authority and INS policy. The government has repeatedly resisted requests for information regarding the detainees by loved ones, lawyers and the press; it has denied detainees access to legal representatives; and has conducted its hearings in secret, in some cases denying the very existence of such hearings. In a democracy, the actions of the government must be transparent or our ability to vote on policies and the people who create those policies becomes meaningless.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government's actions has been its attack on the Bill of Rights, the very cornerstone of our American democracy. The War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.

Finally, the United States' actions with regard to prisoners held at Camp Delta at the Guantanamo Bay naval station have been in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. These prisoners are being held as "unlawful combatants," a term that has no meaning in international law. The government's disregard for international law can only serve to encourage other nations to act likewise and undermine the very War on Terrorism it seeks to fight.

The result of all of these actions has been the deliberate, persistent, and unnecssary erosion of the basic rights that protect every citizen and non-citizen in the United States. A free society demands the rule of law. Without it, democracy is meaningless. The government has consistently refused to recognize the protections afforded by the US Constitution and international law, and in doing so, it has failed in its responsibility to maintain a democratic society that is both open to, and accountable to, the people.

The United Nations must intervene and free the people of the United States.

Originally posted by qberror
I agree with you. Just to name a few known facts:

KOYOTO DOCUMENT - an aggreement of almost all countries in the world to reduce CO2 emmissions (to prevent the ozone layer diminishing). Clinton signed it - Bush said: we dont need that. forgot what the us signed. I am the boss and we won't stand to our word.

There's not a whole lot of facts anywhere in the Kyoto agreement, much less in what you wrote. There were only 38 original signatory countries to the original agreement, out of hundreds of countries worldwide - that's nowhere close to "almost all". Even now, 5 years later, of the 134 countries listed on the document, only 84 have signed it, and those countries only account for 44% of the target CO2 emissions. The purpose of Kyoto's greenhouse emission reductions (CO2) was to address global warming and climate change - it has absolutely nothing to do with the ozone layer, as CO2 has no impact on that. Aside from the US, it looks like Russia will refuse to sign it, and it's very important to note that the emission reductions only apply to developed countries. Developing countries are free to pollute as much as they want, even if they have signed. China, for example, has no reductions in CO2 output imposed on it by Kyoto. Basically, Kyoto is a joke, and is fundamentally flawed by bogus science anyway.

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by qberror
The United Nations must intervene and free the people of the United States. How do you propose they do that when Dubya just thumbs his nose at the UN anyway? If they were going to impose sanctions, they should have done it the moment he defied the directive and went in regardless. But we all know that ain't gonna happen because this bully's just too big.