I doubt I will ever vote for a Democrat again. I have never voted for a republican, and I am unlikely to start now. Currently, I vote libertarian, but I try to keep informed of alternatives in case I find a party more to my liking. I voted for the Libertarian, Harry Browne, twice, even though he is an avowed statist. Harry wants to take us back to the limited government of the founders. In my opinion, that would doom us to repeat all the mistakes we have already made. I think we need to move forward toward the elimination of government altogether rather than backward to a failed scheme to limit government powers.
On the other hand, if Harry were to become President, it would surely put a crimp in some extravagant statist lifestyles. I still think he was the best alternative on the ballot in the last election cycle. I don't vote for the candidate I think will win. I vote for the candidate that I think will be best for the country.
John Kerry has committed to stopping the Feds opposition to Medical Marijuana in states where it is legal. That is a big plus in my book. If he would actually do that, it would soon result in the de facto legalization of pot and a major de-escalation of the drug war. Kerry has also committed to lowering taxes on the poor. That's another plus. On the other hand, he would raise taxes on the rich. That's a minus. I don't think he sees the need to give up the American Empire, and he has spent way too much time in the senate.
DennisKucinich would like to legalize pot and pull out of Iraq. That's good, but he is also an extreme socialist who espouses policies that have been well proven not to work. I also doubt that he has the gravitas and intellect to survive the presidency. That hasn't stopped George Bush, of course, but Shrubya has the backing of the so-called “Intelligence Community”. Kucinich would be a target the moment he was nominated. Of course that is usually the case, but he is radical enough to arouse the passions of the entire establishment, republican and democrat.
Doctor Howard Dean is a clever and spunky person, but he would raise taxes. That's a no-no in my book. On the other hand, if he balanced the budget, that might actually result in less of a burden than the borrow-and-spend regime of the Bushites. As a Doctor, he has way too much invested in the monopoly power of medical doctors to prescribe drugs. I don't see him as having presented any real solution to the Iraq problem. But I doubt anyone could be worse at getting along with Arabs than George W Bush. Heaven help us if I am proven wrong.
I don't know John Edwards position on marijuana legalization, but that leads me to suspect that it not favorable. As a matter of fact, I don't know his position on any substantive issues, even though I have heard him speak for several minutes on TV. This does not bode well. Until I learn more, I see him as Slick Willy light. That fact that he is a lawyer does not recommend him to me.
Al Sharpton is a good entertainer, but, like Senator Edwards, I have little knowledge of his positions on issues, despite having seen him go on at considerable length on TV. If he somehow got to the White House, I think the results would be colorful but disastrous. Of course, that is possible with any of this group, and is probably better than the boring disaster now occurring at the Presidential Mansion.
All the candidates of the major parties are pathological statists, and can only be trusted to rob and pillage. Nevertheless, the exact method they use for their nefarious schemes can lead to a greater or lesser degree of misery for their subjects, so there may be some use in trying to guess what they will do if elected.