Leave a message here if you support John F. Kerry for President

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Special Reports: December 28, 2003: Elections 2004: Polls and Opinions: Leave a message here if you support John F. Kerry for President

This Year's Presidential Elections and the Peace Corps

This is our informal poll of RPCV's issues and concerns in the Presidential Election.

Leave a message below if you support John F. Kerry for President. You don't have to sign, but please leave a short message on the reason for your vote.

John F. Kerry

By Redefeat Bush 2004 (cpe-024-165-162-055.midsouth.rr.com - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 2:20 am: Edit Post

Where do I start, there are soooooo many reasons why Kerry is the man and Dubya isn't...
Kerry: Handsome
Dubya: Silly
Kerry: Intelligent
Dubya: Intelligence failures
Kerry: Decorated hero
Dubya: AWOL--at least his records are
Kerry: JFK his role model
Dubya: A chip off the old Bush block
Kerry: Record of public service
Dubya: Record of public intoxication
Kerry: Inspires confidence
Dubya: Inspires fear
Kerry: What Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Dubya: What Would Jesus Do?
Kerry: Camp David
Dubya: Camp X-ray
Kerry: Check please!
Dubya: Take Mastercard?
Kerry: Botox to hide wrinkles
Dubya: Flightsuit to hide the big fat lie

...I could keep going with this.

Simply put, the bottom line for me is this: Anyone BUT Bush in 2004.

By Alan Hickman (0-1pool56-45.nas6.little-rock1.ar.us.da.qwest.net - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit Post

We need to put a new face on international relations.

By Anne Herisson-Leplae (alpha3.csd.uwm.edu - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit Post

Kerry's platform is closer to the Peace Corp's philosophy. I believe we will live in a more peaceful world under Kerry's leadership.
- Anne Herisson-Leplae - Morocco 1984 - 86

By thinkaboutit (ppp20-pdx.dialoregon.net - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit Post

Kerry is an unknown. What will he really do as president? I'm not sure. Bush is a known. A known I don't want as president. Bush acts out of his own interest, regardless of the consequences. Maybe that is the nature of every President. But Bush truly is blind to all else but his own personal desires - good or bad. His war was inexcusable. He attitude toward the U.S. and its citizens and its positive relationship with other countries - oh! I'm sorry he doesn't give a shell fish. I'll take the chance on Kerry.

By Mary Garcia (l180101.mos.dialup.fsr.net - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit Post

We've seen what Bush has done and the lies he has told.

Give Peace a chance

Give Kerry a chance

By Peter Lee (adsl-68-75-70-181.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit Post

Mostly for ABB reasons, but also because he seems smart and sensitive to issues of importance to RPCVs. It also doesn't hurt that he is a long distance cyclist and runner. Yeah!

By bob utne (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit Post

Unfortunately, few outside our borders respect or trust the Bush Administration. Kerry has the opportunity to restore both. Once accomplished, all PCVs will become proud USA ambassadors and find themselves welcomed in every village/town.

BTW, read the book "How to Change the World" by David Bornstein. Every PCV has a special opportunity to become a powerful "social entrepreneur".

By Jim Fox (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit Post

Along with everything else, Peace Corps can only benefit from removing the lying, self-serving Bush Administration, replacing it with a man who shows promise of intelligence, sensitivity, experience and restraint.

There's going to be a whole world of damage to cleanup and repair. Fences to mend, treaties to restore, fears to calm, even new hatreds and new terrorists to control. It's gonna be a horendous task, demanding the absolute best from all of us.

Bush's demonstrated self-serving opportunistic exploitation of simplistic fear, his bigotry, and his wanton use of violence, are clearly not up to the task of leadership in a modern, complex world. I believe Kerry is far more qualified, deserves a chance, and a strong measure of trust and hope.

Once things settle down, Peace Corps and RPCV's should take a major role in repairing and restoring the United States' institutions, and our squandered resources and leadership role on this ever-shrinking planet. It won't be easy; the damage is too great. I think Kerry will have the ability to lead, and to accept help.

By Jeanine Borland (neda-6-252-16-afg.neda.af - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit Post

As a evacuated PCV from Turkmenistan following the 11 Sept 2001 event, my life has been changed by Bush's inability to foster peace. Kerry seems to have the desire to put PCVs in the position they belong...respected peace makers representing a country that fosters peace instead of war.

By John Crist (ip68-2-37-222.ph.ph.cox.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit Post

Kerrys ideas about Peace Corps are reminicent of what I recall when I joined the Corps in 1962 after hearing the call for volunteers by JFK. I feel his ideas best represent the original reason we all joined the Peace Corps in the first place.

By TedK (216-80-114-103.c3-0.grn-ubr1.chi-grn.il.cable.rcn.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit Post

Kerry's just making campaign promises -- no way the PCorps can add that many volunteers or effectively manage to expand with the numbers he's proposing within his first four years. That said, Kerry's positions have a lot more to do with why I joined the Peace Corps and what I learned there. I'm also voting Democrat based on their environment rating (Kerry gets 97% from the League of Conservation Voters) and the Democrat position on health care.

Kyrgyzstan, '96-98

By Hunter Ellinger (h-66-134-32-81.hstqtx02.dynamic.covad.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit Post

Peace is rooted in justice, which in turn is rooted in law. Bush is a vigilante who sets a destructive example even when he happens to lynch the right guy and launches deadly feuds in the process. The world needs for its strong nations to be willing to accept the rules they declare for others. Kerry supports this idea, Bush does not.

By Jan PC (243-173-223-66.gci.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:40 am: Edit Post

No contest. Bush is absolutely the worst president never elected! No matter how bad Kerry is, he can't get below Bush.

By Afghan III (sa16-p17.dreamscape.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:27 am: Edit Post

Although I am an RPCV, sadly I don't think the Peace Corps is relevant to this election. Bush has acted so arrogantly toward the ordinary people of this country, the rest of the world, and our natural and pulic resources, that I could not vote to rehire him. Even when he makes what I consider a sensible decision, he manages to explain it in a way that makes it seem obnoxious. He still hasn't owned up to his favoritism toward huge energy companies, which did so much to harm citizens of the West coast during the energy crisis. Remember his pal, "Kenney boy" Lay, who he used to speak so highly of?

By Beth T. Harris (ip68-4-159-198.oc.oc.cox.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:34 am: Edit Post

This is truly a very dangerous time in the history of the U.S..The 2000 election was fraudulent. GB was not elected, he was selected. Yet very little or nothing was heard from the American people about this. Then in the past four year we have seen an assault on the constitution and our civil liberties. We were lead into an unjust war not of our making and our military are dying, or being maimed by the thousands. We have seen a vast erosion of the middle class and 2.5 million jobs lost. Soon our children will need to go the China to get a job. The Republicans control all branches of the government besides the media. Is this reflective of a democracy? As PCVs we have had the oppertunity to see less than perfect governments. But right now is our own country any better? The sadest thing is there has been little opposition from the Democrats. I do believe we must do every thing possible to get Bush out of the White House. But I'm not sure I have that much confidence in Kerry. There is a lot of anger from Democrats about Ralph Nader running again. I think this can be a positive thing because if he is able to mobilize young people, and gets the press to keep the issues on the front burner (I think the Republicans will do all they can for Nader because they believe it will take votes away for Kerry.)Also the other Democrats like Kucinich and Sharpton can also push Kerry to take a stand on issues. If Kerry is pushed to take a stronger stand on issues maybe Americans will not see the Democrats as being so passive. With all this said, I don't think politicians do anything unless they are pushed to do so. It is altimately up to all of us to be involved, if we want to see a change of direction this country is taking.


By revett ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:19 am: Edit Post

This is a no brainer. Four more of Bush-Cheney and this country's future will dim exponentially. We have lost our sense of direction and, more importantly, our national values. Actually, "we" haven't; the administration has. Time for a change.

By Jamie Robertson (dig-202.wcta.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:55 am: Edit Post

Time for a change has long since arrived. I can't believe that this (the possibility of supporting someone for president who believes war is a mainstream foreign policy tool and who has alienated most of the developed and developing world) could possibly be a question. If there is any question, the good effects on individual Americans that Peace Corps service is purported to have is simply an illusion.

By Art Latham (alatham2-pc.cals.ncsu.edu - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:00 am: Edit Post

Chalk up one more RPCV who agrees with Mary Garcia. (above, 11:05 posting)

Kerry. Give Peace a Chance.

By Janna M. Bremer ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:05 am: Edit Post

The reputation of the United States has rarely been at a lower level. The arrogance of the Bush administration toward world opinion and our unwillingness to honor treaty commitments are embarrassing. John Kerry would help to change this situation. He has dignity and intelligence. Although he may have failed to convince some people that he has a strong commitment to the issues that RPCVs care about, I believe that he does have a commitment. Besides, the only thing that matters is that Bush is gone.

By Jim Greene (lc0360.zianet.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:18 am: Edit Post

I was a volunteer during the Vietnam War and remember my feelings about being an American at that time. George Bush has revived that feeling in me. Several months after 9/11 I remember talking to a Portugese woman in a market in Lisbon (in March 2002) about her reaction to that action. She recalled her reaction and sympathy for the US after that action. Just a year later all that support from citizens worldwide had dissolved as Bush ignored the opposition of so many countries and alienated many people. Our country can't afford another 4 years ignorant foreign policy. John Kerry is committed to repairing the damage Bush has down. -- And doesn't it seem wierd for someone who wasn't democratically elected to be such a strong advocate for democracy in other nations?

By Jim Mueller (106.leo.co.ls - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:28 am: Edit Post

As an RPCV and a current PCV I have felt the loss of respect for Americans overseas as a result of the current asministrations inept handling of foreign and domestic affairs. We need someone who can restore the once good reputation of the USA by earning the respect of the world community once again. This cannot happen with the current administration.
I am sure that John Kerry will deal responsibly with Peace Corps, not promise growth but fail to fund it. Peace Corps needs strengthening not growth for growth's sake. There are too many PCV's in the field for the assignments available.

By Elizabeth McCambridge ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:56 am: Edit Post

Your summary states it clearly "Bush's foreign policy has undercut the ideals of the Peace Corps."

Kerry is liberal and idealistic and has served many years in the trenches (literally and figuratively). I trust him. He will not undermine the ideals of the Peace Corps and he will support the PC with money and words.

By Jennifer Cochran ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:59 am: Edit Post

I can't imagine having served in the Peace Corps under Bush's administration. It would have seemed too ironic and too frustrating to represent our nation which has been coopted by his bellicose, terrorizing forces. I now work with international students who often speak of their positive experiences with Peace Corps Volunteers in their home countries. We need more of these stories, not stories of more nations being invaded and occupied by the United States military. Clearly Kerry is the better choice for a more peaceful American prescence in the world.

By Sara S. (sdn-ap-026castocp0414.dialsprint.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:00 am: Edit Post

Bush says many things but follow through is important. Just saying he wants to support the Peace Corps is not enough. He hasn't pushed for his proposals so PC is no better off for his "wanting" to support the program. Would Kerry do better? That remains to be seen. I think we need to look further into a candidate that just what he wants to do for the organization though. Bush's foriegn policy is a disaster and I think that is ultimately harmful to the PC in the long run. I think the PC would do better under Kerry but we need to push him to really support the organization. His idea of sending high school grads to the Peace Corps in exchange for college tuition show me his lack of understanding of the organization and what it is trying to do. I don't think we need to be sending high schools grads to do the kind of work PC is trying to do. They need to be college grads with knowledge and skills. Many of the conturies PC goes to has plenty of unemployed high school grads. Give college grads a rebate on the college tuition they owe if they serve.

By Carolyn K. Kroll (h-68-166-25-115.atlngahp.dynamic.covad.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:13 am: Edit Post

Kerry is the only one talking about the concept of national service for young people. Offsetting tuition costs to perform national service is a good proposal. This country has needed an alternative to military service for decades and Kerry is proposing one.
- Carolyn (Ghana PCV - '67-'69)

By Robert R. McCord (pool-68-161-128-20.ny325.east.verizon.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:53 am: Edit Post

In general, the Bush administration has performed poorly on economic policy, foreign relations, human rights, environmental protection, education and every other major issue that I can think of. The Bush family's historical connection to the intelligence community,special interests (e.g. oil) and others, makes me think that the Peace Corps is just another "pawn in their game," as Dylan would say.

I support any Democratic candidate who has a chance of defeating Bush and sending him back to Texas. I also suggest that anyone read the book "Dynasty" to get a better feel for the real Bush agenda.

As for the Peace Corps itself, it is a great organization. Hopefully a new President will appoint a more qualified Director than the one we now have and the organization will not be politicized.
Robert R. McCord
Turkey 8 (1965-67)

By Rich Morrow (ccsd-90-26.ccsd.k12.co.us - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit Post

Kerry's whole approach to international affairs is much more in line with the goals of the Peace Corps than Bush's wild cowboy approach.

By Sue Ann Allen (dialup- - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit Post

My vote is for Kerry. In terms of his positions on international issues and domestic social and economic issues, his philosophy is more in tune with the goals of the Peace Corps. Bush's policies have been disastrous for the world and the environment. And, for any Nader supporters out there, while he has done great things in his consumer advocate niche, it is clear that Bush would not be in the White House if Nader voters had voted for Gore, so only vote for him if you REALLY see no difference between Bush and Kerry. After just a few months of Bush's first term, I think his policy decisions made clear the huge difference!

By Anne Hedges ( - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:47 am: Edit Post

The reason to vote for Kerry? Bush!

By Arlen Albrecht ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit Post

How can we trust Bush--he lied to US about Iraq, he lied to US about his energy policy, he put US in a staggering debt, he is not a conservative-he is an EXTREAMIST. He will use the PC proposal to buy votes then say "we couldn't afford it". Kerry has integrety, I TRUST this man. I served 5 years in Colombia, Fiji and Chile, It was tough both phisically and mentally, Kerry served in Vietnam--we have mutural respect. He later fought to bring our troops home and vowed to make peace not war when ever possible. He will work with the UN as a world body instead of making a mockery of that institution.

By Thomas ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit Post

While I support Kerry's service for college program, I would hope he includes master's level education in the program. Volunteer's with higher levels of existing skills will help the Peace Corps achieve it's goals.

Note: roughly 3/4 of the voting age population chose not to vote, and only half of registered voters voted. If the election was representative of the voting-age public, then there were by far more democrats that chose not to vote than greens that did, let alone disenchanted democrats that chose to vote green.

From a practical perspective, it may be easier and have a greater pay-off to put effort into getting people who share the democratic ideology to vote than trying to convince a small and somewhat passionate group of people to do something they feel strongly opposed to.

By concerned RPCV (mail.architechture.org - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit Post

Despite how the budget numbers/volunteer numbers compare on paper between Kerry and Bush, it seems that Kerry is more deserving of the RPCV vote. All the money in the world from Bush does no good if his foreign policy makes the international community hostile to the presence of PCVs in the field. As we all know, PCVs have immense impact in their communities creating goodwill about the United States, but it only goes so far when our government seems to be working very hard to alienate former allies and create an "us vs. them" mentality.

By swworkman ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit Post

Kerry will be better than Bush; that is we can't help but get something different and GREAT chances are (looking at the record) this different will definately be better.

By rebeccajasper (1cust111.tnt2.minneapolis3.mn.da.uu.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit Post

I can't write it better than Jim Fox (see above).

By kd (dhcp-028-189.cns.ohiou.edu - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit Post

I support Kerry because I destest Bush. But to Kerry's credit, I believe his world view is much closer to the one many RPCV's ascribe to, and thus he offers a chance for America to move away from the sickness that has overcome us through war and egotistical posturing. As both a former PCV and APCD, I do not happen to think huge numbers of volunteers flooding the field is a wise plan. But, Kerry's desire to send Americans enfused with Peace Corps spirit out into the world gives me hope--he understands the value of "each one teach one." Perhaps there IS a chance to connect once again with people deeply hurt by years of US disrespect, manipulation, and exploitation. I think Kerry is wise enough to listen to expert advice--15,000 is too many--and will temper his plan based on the reality of training, logistical, and safety issues. We know PCV's can make a difference. Vote for John Kerry!!!!

By kevinmdoyle ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:06 pm: Edit Post

The damage that George W. Bush has done to the reputation and good name of the United States overseas due to his shallow and corporate-friendly foreign policy, is a threat to peace, a threat to Peace Corps volunteers and others who live and work overseas, and a threat to sustainable development. Shrub must go. Before he starts WW III.

By RPCV-APCD ( - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:11 pm: Edit Post

It would be nice if presidential candidates and sitting presidents would drive their PC strategy by substantive program goals and objectives, rather than by catchy phrases and numbers in the field (10,000 by 2000 was Clinton's). Both dems and republicans have been putting forth superficial numbers-based campaigns for decades. To Bush's credit, he is one of only a couple of presidents since JFK to see his PC initiative supported by substantial increases in budgets approved by congress.

That said, I will vote for Kerry based on many factors ... env, health, civil liberties, foreign policy, etc. And the hope that he will commit to a worthy candidate for appointment as PC Director AND APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF TAKING OFFICE (THIS IS IMPORTANT! it took both CLINTON AND BUSH 2 OVER A YEAR AND THIS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED LEADERSHIP, MORALE AND OPERATIONAL INTEGRITY WITHIN THE AGENCY).

By Robert Rutherford (65-86-204-34.client.dsl.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:54 pm: Edit Post

Bush must go. Why? Because people like Mr. Katzen are being promoted under his watch.

By Natasha Yates (0-1pool173-179.nas17.minneapolis1.mn.us.da.qwest.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:00 pm: Edit Post

Kerry for Pres. because Bush is such a dangerous disaster. However, I do not agree that a promise to be a PCV should grant a HS graduate four years free college tuition. Being a PCV should not be motivated as a way to pay off a financial debt. Pay the PCV a greater stipend upon completion of service but not a pre-volunteer payment of any kind.

By Sandy Langley (cache-mtc-ab06.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:05 pm: Edit Post

Bush has led our country DOWN a slippery slope. His
lies have cost us lives and credibility. Kerry at least promises a change.

By Terese Condon ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:09 pm: Edit Post

Bush has already shown that he does not care about what other countries feel about our actions. He has no regard for the United Nations and has a history of putting his Texas buddies ahead of the interest of others.

I do not blame other countries for fearing the US at this time for we have taken on a bully attitude. This is not the Peace Corp Mission.

Terese Condon
Ethiopia 1967-69

By Danny Buck (sf-du175.cybermesa.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:22 pm: Edit Post

Kerry stood tall for peace in congressional hearings after his return from Viet Nam. If he can come from the place he testified from in those hearings, we would be well down the road towards improving international relations and a more peaceful world.
Bush stands tall for corporations and that's about it. If its good for Hallaburten, its good for Bush- not much of a policy in my book. He has not made the world a safer place to wage peace from.

Danny Buck
Ghana 1969

By Linda L. (proxy02.usu.edu - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:28 pm: Edit Post

I am tired of the lies and deceptions from the Bush administration. Kerry brings hope for a much needed change and direction for both international and domestic policies. As a RPCV from the 70's, I maintain my idealism for peace and a policy of mutual respect between nations . I put my faith in Kerry.

By James Joseph Alstrum ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:00 pm: Edit Post

Kerry's life and record reflect a commitment to selfless service. In stark contrast, Bush's life and record as a so called "compassionate conservative" are synonomous with selfishness and greed-only helping those who need no help whether at home or abroad. Kerry represents the best of the baby-boomer generation while Bush is a model of contempt for basic decency and fairness. Kerry's proposals are more in keeping with the ideals which inspired most of us to join the Peace Corps in the first place.
Jim Alstrum RPCV Colombia 1968-1971

By Dan Luckey (unused-209-74-57-254.unused.epix.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:23 pm: Edit Post

Bush said that Kerry wanted to cut back the intelligence budget over 1 billion dollars. This is the same intelligence organization (or organizations)that could not predict whether Iraq had WMD and they had over 1 billion dollars etc etc to find them. You tell me whether it was money well spent

By Judith Merrill Ratcliffe (adsl-67-118-22-142.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:52 pm: Edit Post

Bush is proud to call himself the "war president". His postures and policies are antithetical to the Peace Corps ideals of international understanding, cooperation, and activities that foster world peace. His administration has done more to promote war, environmental degradation, economic disparities, fear of other cultures and religions than any U.S. government that I can remember.

By marvin wofford (gtw13-2.esc13.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:13 pm: Edit Post

Being from Texas, I know what a joke Shrub (G.W.) is. His administration has been a disaster. How could anyone vote for him? That is, anyone with any intelligence.

By Robert J. Englund, M.D. ( on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:23 pm: Edit Post

I worked hard for Governor/Doctor Howard Dean, but now am supporting John Kerry. The Bush administration is a disaster. Kerry has so much more to offer regarding the jobs, health care, the economy, the environment, and the Peace Corps.
Bob Englund, Nigeria XI, ('64-'66)

By Mary Bruckenstein (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:52 pm: Edit Post

Kerry has lived in the real conflicts of the world and been able to grow thruogh those days and so the United States should grow in patince that is needed to allow other countries of the world find their own way to a government that is acceptable to them. We should not threaten and break down the United nations as Gearge Bush is doing. I have voted for kerry in the primary and will agin in November. As a RCV I do not think hinging education onto a volunteer stint of service is neede the reward is in the daily living and growing remember we recieve as much if not more than we give in all our overseas experinces. Mary Myers-Bruckenstein Ethiopia 1968-1970

By Jack Cole (cache-dg05.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:58 pm: Edit Post

Re-election of Bush would be a great disaster. No matter who runs against him must be elected. Having said this, I like Kerry because in contrast to Bush he is an honest man. He'll make mistakes but if he chooses his cabinet wisely our country will regain its stature.

By paulw (69-164-123-49.sbtnvt.adelphia.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:51 pm: Edit Post

I was a Peace Corps volunteer more than 35 years ago.
The thought that George W. Bush represents ideals that the Peace Corps stands for never occured to me. How can a man who has destroyed so much of what America once meant to the rest of the world be considered preferable to anyone else in the context of fostering a healthy Peace Corps. I am no big fan of John Kerry, but there is no choice for me in this election. Bush is a disaster.

By Mary Marx (67-40-33-117.dnvr.qwest.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:11 pm: Edit Post

If you really care about your future and the horrendous deficit that Bush is building up for you to pay off, you should vote for John Kerry. The Bush administration is not taxing and spending (something they like to blame the Democrats for doing) - it is a LOT worse! They are CHARGING and spending. Even with the current interest rates (being low), this deficit may never get paid back. This deficit (if it is ever paid off) will be coming out of your future inheritance.

By Sanford Gaines (129-7-213-249.dhcp.uh.edu - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:11 pm: Edit Post

John Kerry has a sophisticated, complex understanding of the world -- just the kind of understanding that you get from being a PCV. I'm less concerned with how big he makes the PC and more concerned with the direction and structure of its programs. I trust him and his likely advisers with those choices. Bush's foreign policies are a disaster -- unilateral, arrogant, condescending, long on inspiring rhetoric and promises(e.g., AIDS in Africa)and very short on follow through. His support for the Peace Corps, while perhaps sincere, is shallow and self-serving. And he has left the volunteers in the field with an impossible task -- how to explain American foreign policy to the rest of the world.

By Mary Duda (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:35 pm: Edit Post

The name of the organization we all served in and love so much is called the Peace Corps. Mr. Bush has not shown that he works hard to establish peace or good relationships with other countries. Bush doesn't show respect for other countries which is against the principles of the Peace Corps. John Kerry would be a much better leader for the US, the world and the Peace Corps! Mary Duda, India 25, 1966-1968

By Robin Porter (wbar8.sea1-4-10-124-037.sea1.dsl-verizon.net - on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit Post

Kerry knows first-hand what war looks like. For this reason and many others, he will utilize the conflict resolution processes within international relations to the fullest extent. He also knows how Congress functions and will be able to get consensus from members on a Peace Corps expansion.

By Jim Fox (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:37 am: Edit Post

I hear that Kerry is very amenable to recieving information from all sources, and then making a considered judgement and decision when necessary. We need to get our ideas for a future Peace Corps role, to him.

We know the folly of playing the "PCV Numbers Game," -- tried several times before. Someone tell Kerry to back off from proposing gross PCV increases, and the idea of teen recruitment subsidies. Instead, we should send him better ideas for programs at all levels. I think he'll listen.

The greatest contribution from PC may come from the graduate ranks of older experienced and sensitive RPCV's in other positions of private and public service, -- consciously helping to clean up the mess. Our country and the world needs us again. It won't be easy.

By Jim Beggs (ip-12-180-41-102.fireserve.net - on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit Post

I agree (with y'all) Realizing that we're dealing with politicians here, I still think Kerry is more likely to effect policy shifts that foster Peace instead of the "might makes right" stance of the Neocons.

By maris rombout (sdn-ap-025scfairp0334.dialsprint.net - on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:53 pm: Edit Post

we've all seen the famous Bush family promising quote"read my lips" from one president Bush. WE've also certainly seen too many of the Bush promises during George W. Bush's term to believe his outlandish promises. Let's give Kerry a chance.

By Larry Steffensen (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:54 pm: Edit Post

Kerry's proposal for expanding the Peace Corps makes good sense and would benefit not only the retunees but the host nations. Kerry has vision and the Bushes don't do the "vision thing" or "nuance".

By Anonymous (sdn-ap-026dcwashp0096.dialsprint.net - on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:42 pm: Edit Post

Let's just start with Gaddi Vasquez and Jay Katzen

By Eve Einselen ( on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 7:49 am: Edit Post

Bush and his cronies are scary; that's why.

By Jeff Rose ( on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:37 am: Edit Post

We must unite as an unwavering voice that speaks for the hundreds of thousands of people we served as PCV's. Kerry's proposal would mend many of the aliances broken or neglected during the Bush Administration. It would also permit thousands of Americans to view America as the rest of the world views us. That, as we all know, brings a powerful understanding of the world at large. Kerry's plans for Service for Education would unequivocally shape the future of American foreign policy, in a more positive and progressive multilateral direction.

By Jeff Rose ( on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:58 am: Edit Post

However, Kerry must initially minimize his proposed quantity of new PCV's to roll into the PC program.
It could potentially grow in the future. But such a leap would do more harm than good, damaging the already frail body of PC programs that currently exist. Perhaps Jim Fox has the right idea. We should write a proposal to better the program and lobby it to Kerry.

By helent (c66-235-12-99.sea2.cablespeed.com - on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:42 pm: Edit Post

bush = bad

By Paul Guraedy (dsl65-168-59-169.tricountytel.com - on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 5:31 pm: Edit Post

We must restore freedom of oversite by citizenry, integrity and responsibility to our Government.

By sralston (dpc6682009028.direcpc.com - on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:21 pm: Edit Post

Because, as RPCVs, we care about our country, our children, our friends and people in other countries here on mother Earth. I do not know how we can survive through four more years of this very dangerous Bush-man.

By Joanne Marie Roll (joey) (cache-mtc-ab06.proxy.aol.com - on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 4:39 pm: Edit Post

Men who went to Vietnam spend the rest of their lives trying to stop war. Men who didn't go to Vietnam spend the rest of their lives trying to prove it didn't matter. It did. Kerry gets my vote.

By Jan Owen (pool-138-89-106-22.mad.east.verizon.net - on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit Post

Simply check the history of the Peace Corps. Look at the rhetoric and the reality of the Peace Corps under various Democratic and then Republican administrations. If you honestly conlude that the Peace Corps is as well served by a Republican administration, check the history again.

The Peace Corps was the creation of a Democratic president and is more likely to benefit by the election of a Democrat to the White House than a Republican.

By melissaluce (cf2.c004.g4.mrt.starband.net - on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:55 pm: Edit Post

I don't care if Bush increases PC budget to the equivalent of the current U.S. military budget, his administration's policies are BAD for the planet--politically, environmentally, morally.
I don't know what Kerry will do, but he can't possibly do a worse job than Bush.

By dubs (cpe-024-165-162-055.midsouth.rr.com - on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:03 am: Edit Post

Better that Bush leave Peace Corps alone--he would muck it up like everything else if he decided to really get involved with Peace Corps issues...like those kids in Willy Wonka's factory.

By Carol Ann Lysek (dialup-ras25-253.eug.or.uspops.net - on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:04 pm: Edit Post

Kerry's Peace Corps proposal doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Peace Corps has never sent high school graduates overseas -- it has always been college graduates! Most countries need and want people with real expertise. That means college graduates with experience or people with real-life experience and expertise.

Kerry's proposal does not look like it is ready for prime time. I like Kerry and his idea of enlarging the Peace Corps but they need to work on this proposal to make it more than political rhetoric.

By Ernest Joel Bowen (user-0ce2k44.cable.mindspring.com - on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 5:19 pm: Edit Post

Bombing people based on lies is not consistent with Peace Corps principles.

By Mike McGahuey ( on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 9:15 am: Edit Post

Winning the war on terrorism will not be achieved unilaterally. Instead of uniting the world against terroism in the days after 9/11, Bush divided it and has continued to drive the wedge since then. His Administration has gone out of its way to demonize and belittle those countries that questioned the WMD threats or that going to Bagdad was the best way to defeat al Queda. Bin Laden must be pleased with the help given by this Administration to his cause. Our natural allies now look for leadership elsewhere. Kerry will do what Bush should have done at the very beginning--be a member of a world family that works together to do what it takes to defeat terror. He understands that listening to others and negotiating is a sign of strength, not weakness.

By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit Post

The campaign has started. Skilled and sophisticated neo-conservative propaganda is already demonizing Kerry, warping his words and then ridiculing him for inconsistency. In desperation, they’re throwing anything and everything they can.

Those of us working for world peace must not be naïve; it’s only gonna get worse, vicious and ugly.

The situation is already so bad, any attempts to understand, deal with or clean up the mess, will be misinterpreted and subject to stinging criticism. Yet it must be done; for us, our children, and our friends and co-workers around the world.

Terrorist threats, for many reasons are very real, having been aggravated, exploited and becoming worse. Kerry is applying for an impossible job, like replacing several hornets-nests, that someone else knocked down and set afire.

Peace Corps is the least of Kerry's problems, though likely part of the long-term solution.

No one can change the world, but we all can give it a nudge in the right direction. The world needs all of our efforts, now.

By Bush adm software ( - on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:08 pm: Edit Post

In the year since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has repeatedly shifted its justification for going to war and constantly changed its story on intelligence, the United Nations, reconstruction, political transition and the cost to the American taxpayer. More than anything, the administration's war in Iraq resembles a software program that, at first, works brilliantly, but then catches the user in a cycle of "fatal error" messages.

Here then, in Silicon Valley terms, is a review of the Bush administration's year in Iraq:

Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.

Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise
Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.

Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"
Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people—Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing
The intelligence is clear.

Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did
Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.

Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.
The United Nations just can't handle this.

Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues
The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.

Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.
Mission accomplished.

Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops—that's wildly off the mark
Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army—Iraqification will work
Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations
The cost to the American taxpayer.

Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can—$50 billion may be on the low side
Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...
Democracy comes to Iraq.

Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast—we're prohibiting political parties
Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement—it's unchangeable
Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution
Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis—How about June 30?
Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections—the ones on November 2
The bottom line.

Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing

By charlotte Utting (146.seattle-11-13rs.wa.dial-access.att.net - on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 3:21 am: Edit Post

I was a twice-serving PCV in Senegal and Cameroun, and also a 5-year PC recruiter. I was (and still am) a strong supporter of both Kucenich and Dean, and wish that more voters had voted their conscience rather than feelings of "electability" at the caucuses and primaries to date. I still hope that these two will make an effort to have their more out-of-the-mainstream- views reflected in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council platform which supports Kerry. As for Kerry's statements on Peace Corps, I disagree strongly both with his proposed dramatic increase in numbers of PCVs and his call for high school graduates to enter the PC with the promise of four years of college tuition upon completion of service, just as I disagree with Gadi Vasquez's proposal of recruiting graduates of 2-year community colleges for PC service. We need mature, life-experienced volunteers who will earn the respect of host country nationals, and we must be certain that countries requesting PCVs are doing so for genuine need and not under U.S. political pressure.

By Susanne Boyd (dhcp-070-134.cns.ohiou.edu - on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 9:27 am: Edit Post

Why support Kerry? I hardly know where to begin! Perhaps because George Bush has destroyed our good image abroad and turned our allies against us. Perhaps because Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists by invading Iraq and making the world even more unsafe. Perhaps because Bush ignores the Israeli-Palestinian problem, allowing Sharon to dictate policy there. I think RPCV's have to look beyond funding issues for the Peace Corps, and look to the state of the world. Kerry may not be perfect, but he is not as scary as our current administration

By John Thompson (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 9:05 pm: Edit Post

John Kerry has the integrity and authority necessary to restore the confidence of the world community in America's foreign policy. This confidence has been destroyed by bush's ignorant, unilateral actions.

By David Cohen ( on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 9:32 pm: Edit Post

An important part of the Peace Corps experience is representing the United States before the world in a positive manner. That has been undermined during the Bush Administration. Think back to 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. I don't know about you, but I was moved to tears by many of the actions of our friends overseas -- eg the Queen ordering that The Star Spangled Banner be played at the changing of the guards and Le Monde declaring in a banner headline We are all Americans. It was a horrible time, but it felt good to be an American, because it was obvious we meant something positive to the world. Compare that to our standing now in the world -- polls show that in Europe, George Bush is considered the single greatest threat to world peace. This Administration has squandered the goodwill we built up after 9/11 even worse than it has squandered the surplus. Only a Kerry Administration can restore our place in the world and fulfill the promises of the Peace Corps.

By Peter Beardsley (host55.209.113.250.the-spa.com - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 9:34 pm: Edit Post

No one who follows the issues — foreign policy, the environment, the deficit, budget proposals that don't fund the things Bush says he supports, you name it — can possibly wish for a second term for this administration.

By Hamadan66 (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 9:41 pm: Edit Post

Bush is the worst president we've ever had. It is imperative that he be defeated -- or re-defeated -- in November

By Stephen Snow (user-0c99k60.cable.mindspring.com - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit Post

George Bush is a criminal who has, with the help of his criminal friends and cronies, done all he could do to divide a nation he promised to unite, steal from the poor to give to the rich and make the earth a far less safe, far more polluted place. It will take many years to undo the damage his sorry administration has done to this country and to the rest of the world. He is the most egregious liar we have had in the White House since Dick Nixon. At least Nixon understood foreign affairs. Bush understands nothing. His duplicity and double-dealing and corporate coddling are so blatant that I cannot believe the Republicans do not see it; it is just that they are as consumed by the same greed and evil that occupies Bush's life and so will not admit it. I cannot imagine ever, in more than 75 years, this nation having such a shameless, shameful person in the White House, a man so full of dualistic thinking and jingoistic rhetoric that he is disgusting almost beyond words.

By David Cohen (dialup- - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit Post

An important part of the Peace Corps experience is representing the United States before the world in a positive manner. That has been undermined during the Bush Administration. Think back to 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. I don't know about you, but I was moved to tears by many of the actions of our friends overseas -- eg the Queen ordering that The Star Spangled Banner be played at the changing of the guards and Le Monde declaring in a banner headline We are all Americans. It was a horrible time, but it felt good to be an American, because it was obvious we meant something positive to the world. Compare that to our standing now in the world -- polls show that in Europe, George Bush is considered the single greatest threat to world peace. This Administration has squandered the goodwill we built up after 9/11 even worse than it has squandered the surplus. Only a Kerry Administration can restore our place in the world and fulfill the promises of the Peace Corps.

By Jim Barborak (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit Post

Kerry over Bush!

Here in Florida we have two Bushes to deal with! That is two too many. Dubya has turned record surpluses into record deficits, done everything in his power to roll back environmental protection, launched a reckless military operation without broad international support, and done little to help the needy in this country or abroad.

By Wendy Rambo Shuford ( on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit Post

I have never been so worried about my country due to the behaviour of my Presicent before.I think Bush has been totally irresponsable on many levels.I do think Kerry has our country"s and the American people's best interest in mind as he works hard to win this election

By Jerry Smetzer (108-102-237-24.gci.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 1:39 am: Edit Post

George Bush is making the world unsafe for Americans - including Peace Corps Volunteers - everywhere overseas. Bush may be proposing to increase the Peace Corps budget but he doesn't say anything about how and when he will allocate the funds to pay for it in the face of rapidly escalating military problems in Iraq caused by his own incompetence, and the incompetence of his lunatic NeoCon buddies, and Halliburton flunkies, and a collapsing federal tax base. John Kerry may be untried as a President, but he is not untried as a war hero, and the men under his command during war do not today question his heroism. By his heroism, and by his standing up in opposition to the Vietnam war John Kerry has made it clear where he stands on issues of war and peace. These are the issues in this election, and it is our job to figure out whether we agree or disagree with him. (Has anybody even yet figured out what George Bush was doing in Alabama when he was supposed to be on active duty with the Texas National Guard?) Gimme a break. Dump Bush. Vote Kerry for President in 2004. I am Jerry Smetzer. RPCV Afghanistan 1968-69.

By Jennifer W. Fowler ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:32 am: Edit Post

We need a strong leader who can cross cultures, listen to others and create opportunities for dialogue with world leaders in an era of globalization. Bush and his cabinet seem arrogant and exclusive. Free world leaders are under scrutiny when they support do business with Bush.

The American people must show the world that we are not UGLY and that we are able to do business, globally.
Bush's vain war has lead us to nothing but increased violence everywhere.

By Ron Sandidge ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:52 am: Edit Post

All of this by my peers and colleagues says it perfectly and peacefully:
* If you served, you know who is needed
* Do we have a choice?
* Seeing Our Good Work Destroyed
* Prefer Kerry over Bush promisses any day.
* Anyone but Bush!
* Let's have some positive, honest leadership, for a change
* Bush's foreign policy dramactically lessens the safety of Americans abroad - including PCVs
* Our best chance for sane national policy!
* Peace Corps would be another child left behind with Bush
* Bush wants to politicize Peace Corps--this will destroy what it stands for
* Bush lacks PC values
* Ashcroft must go!
* Kerry Understands the World better than Bush
* Kerry over Dubya is a no-brainer.

By Jane Marlow Willis (janeword) ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 9:25 am: Edit Post

Kerry, injured himself, turned his boat around to rescue another sailor who went overboard.

He did not leave another sailor behind, and he will not leave the rest of us behind.

If he sees this poll, Bush will be vindictive enough to take it out on Peace Corps.

By Mary Marx ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit Post

Unfortunately, the US lost its window of opportunity to have most of the world's support and sympathy after the 9/11 attacks by rushing into an unjustified war in Iraq...one that should have been orchestrated by the UN rather than the US. Now a large sector of the world feels much hatred for Bush's America. We may be able to give them some hope by electing a new President showing that the American people care even if their current President does not.

By Ann Sheehan (pcp03276486pcs.reding01.pa.comcast.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit Post

Why would those who served in the PEACE corps in developing nations around the world support someone who stole an election, enriches his friends, and has engaged this country in war?

By Michael Driscoll Ethiopia 64-66 (mail.ci.stpaul.mn.us - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit Post

I agree with all of those who have not made their support for Kerry contingent on whatever the future of the Peace Corps may be. The Peace Corps' future - and future effectiveness - will be largely dependent on the election of a person who can restore the integrity of the U.S. in the world community and who will show the humility that is necessary to do this.

The image of a swaggering Bush is just that - an image. There is no moral or intellectual substance - and no human compassion for either the poor of this country or of the world. Bush and his contingent of angry, appointed right-wing, militaristic cohorts have already done serious damage to both the historic values this country once stood for, as well as inculcated true hatred among many around the world.

It's time for a return to a strong and decent foreign policy that is multilateral and world-community based, as well as for an economic policy that tries to create a balance between and among the various economic and ethnic groups in this country.

By Gail Hughes ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit Post

Kerry seems to be an honest and competent man. On the other hand, Bush is a war criminal who should be tried for Crimes Against Humanity. There's no contest between the two!

By GeorgeOrwell ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit Post

What's all the fuss? The war is going well for Oceania. We have always been at peace in Eurasia. War is peace. Have a Freedom Fry and be content: Big Brother is watching us.

My only question is: After Bush is "re-elected" in November, will females also be enscripted when the draft is re-enacted? This is a brave new world of equality, afterall.

By Jan Yaeger ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit Post

There are far too many reasons to even begin listing. Not rhetoric - reality. If we are to have any hope of positive international relations and honest government accountable to its citizens at home, Bush has got to go.

By Debra Snell (appli-1249-opt.gsu.edu - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit Post

Because he is ruining democracy. Wake up people! Civil rights, environment and appointment of right wing judges! How much more can we stand?

By Cathy Kleinsmith ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit Post

Bush touts democracy--and then when he doesn't get what HE wants (like a Judge on some court) or nations to agree on a war, he forgets democracy and does whatever is necessary to get what HE wants. Of course, the precedent was set when democracy was short changed, and he was selected by the Supreme Court. He's not a President--he's a King.

By Terry Linkletter ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit Post

What saddens me the most is that Kerry and the world will have to live with Bush's debacle. We have to reverse the momentum to get humankind moving again in the positive direction.

By Robert Perry ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit Post

I think that it is important that we have someone like Kerry in office -- someone who has a deep understanding of the need to work closely with the world community, rather than in a recklessly unilateral way (as I see the Bush administration has). I believe that a Kerry presidency would be a sign to thoughtful people around the world that the U.S. is genuinely interested in regaining some measure of respect in the international community -- a respect gained from policies that genuinely promote the welfare of all of the world's people.

By EduCourse ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 1:44 pm: Edit Post

I do not trust Bush. He led us to believe that the U.S. was in danger from Saddam Hussain when we were not. He is lying about Kerry's positions on public policy and taxes. Visit http:// www.FactCheck.org. I find it very difficult to believe an adminstration that misleads. If it is wrong about Iracq, how can it be trusted about anything else?

By Shari Cohen ( on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 2:29 pm: Edit Post

As someone who continues to work in international development, I have had too many colleagues from other countries ask me, "Why does America put up with Bush? He is dangerous, cant you see that?" Of course I see it, many people I know see it and yet, here we are desperately trying to change the out of control course that the Bush Family has set for this country. As so many here have already said, its time to get America back to what it could be - a nation of compassionate leadership; a nation that has the world clout to bring countries together to improve the plight of humanity, not to degrade and destroy it.

Do I care about Kerry's Peace Corps plan? Hell no. Personally, until and unless PC can start hiring the best person to head PC (instead of useless Presidentially appointed tools who mainly use PC as a career stepping stool) it has no business expandin any programming. Hell, PC cant even guarantee safety to its own charges, its in no position to expand.

Do I like Kerry's "service for education" idea? Definately. How doable it is, well thats another issue. They've been doing this same thing in Botswana, my country of service, for decades now and its a programme that works and it just makes good sense.

The bottom line is this, I dont think we have any other option but Kerry at this point. People who usually vote along third party lines need to get it together this year and support Kerry as well. It is clear that another 4 years under Bush could very well leave the greatest country in the world as the world's largest pariah state, and could very well lead us into WWIII...that is my biggest fear, not the expansion of the Peace Corps!

By pam kefi (216-237-50-190.orange.nextweb.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:00 pm: Edit Post

isnt it obvious?........Kerry is a democrat with concerns for humanity and peace!

By Carolyn J. Kinsman (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:50 pm: Edit Post

We must, must, must support John Kerry and get rid of George Bush; then we must continue to be vigilant and hold Kerry accountable for bringing this government back in line with values and practices that begin to restore some of our credibility and integrity around the globe. We cannot afford another Bush term unless we are committed to the idea that at least Bush will "bring down the empire" more quickly so that fewer will suffer from our emperialist behavior. There must be a better way!

By Jay, India 37 (dsl-63-194-153-55.coastside.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 6:49 pm: Edit Post

Bush is
- Immoral
- Irrational, and
- Illegal

By james Burmester (50-234.rcip.com - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 9:50 pm: Edit Post

Bush sucks we all know that, but you guys are all suckers too, thinking once again that the democrats will be the salvation of everything. 9/11 proved how spineless the democrats can be against anything. Especially against Bush. They were all only concerned for their positions in congress. Bush is one of the worst presidents, but how do we know if Kerry will be any different. He supported bush all along. Democracy is dead. Bush cheated way into office, but even after a very clear civil rights panel found voter irregularities in Florida and intimidation against minorities, no one did anything and so Bush just has gone along and done what ever and the Democrats just paved the road for him. Shit, if this was any of our countries we served in or even some european countries, we'd be burning taxi cabs and storming capitol hill with machine guns. Im not asking to do something this drastic, but jesus if you guys could get over the election illusion of John Kerry and his war medals, you'd see he's just another self serving politician and it always takes the people making a lot of nasty noise to remind those people in power who's really in control. My suggestion neither bush nor kerry
james Burmester
the gambia 98-00

By scottruplin (c-24-21-86-66.client.comcast.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit Post

You've got to be kidding. For reasons of fiscal sanity alone Kerry should be Prez. Kerry also seems to have a grasp of international relations that all the Bushies (save perhaps Colin Powell) lack. Look at Afghanistan. To maintain the alliances we need for our own security the US must wield both the carrot and the stick, and Bush understands only the latter. Indeed, sometimes the stick is called for, but to rely exclusively on it is madness.

scott ruplin
Nepal 93-95

By scottruplin (c-24-21-86-66.client.comcast.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit Post

You've got to be kidding. For reasons of fiscal sanity alone Kerry should be Prez. Kerry also seems to have a grasp of international relations that all the Bushies (save perhaps Colin Powell) lack. Look at Afghanistan. To maintain the alliances we need for our own security the US must wield both the carrot and the stick, and Bush understands only the latter. Indeed, sometimes the stick is called for, but to rely exclusively on it is madness.

scott ruplin
Nepal 93-95

By RPCV Nikkole (host-64-216-9-69.midco.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit Post

I agree with what I'm hearing overall here. I do want to emphasize one thing that I didn't see much, however. The world is watching us. As our American brothers and sisters protested the war across this country, the world was watching then, too. Then they could believe that our government, our president, did not reflect the people's opinion. If we do not eject him, we imply that we have supported his policies and his wars. We cannot afford to let the world believe that we support him. We must show the world that he stands alone. Then they can hate him instead of all Americans. At this point, it is not our fault. If Americans re-elect him, it becomes our fault. (At least in the world's eyes.)

Obviously, many governments of the world do not represent the will and values of the people. We live in the one country in the world that is supposed to have power to take our government back when it doesn't represent us. We have to exercise that right and that power to take it back. That is when the world might have the possibility of having faith in democracy once again. (Although, unfortunately, the damage done will take much more to repair than a simple election. But we've got to start somewhere. I fear the consequences if we don't.)
RPCV Kyrgyzstan 1999-2001

By John Blaine (179-207-237-24.gci.net - on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit Post

I'm hopeful that if we can elect Kerry, he will take courage from what got him there...a nationwide desire to change:
from war to diplomacy
from deficit to surplus
from tax cuts to fair taxes across the board
from words that support education to dollars and words that support education
from cowboy ("Bring 'em on!") to intellectual
from polemicist to centered leader.

It's only a start, of course. But Americans follow their leaders, and we need a leader we can respect and then maybe we can respect our neighbors again.

-John Blaine
Nigeria VI

By looshr (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 9:24 am: Edit Post

anybody but Bush

By Terese Condon ( on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit Post

Bush has distroyed the good will we once had with our neighbors and the United Nations. Bush seems to think that he is God and can decide what is best for the world. He does not respect anyone that disagrees with him. He endevors to impose his religious beliefs on others which is contrary to the constitution of the United States.

I travel a lot - Japan, China, Tibet, Turkey, Czech, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Holand, Ireland, Mexico,Belize, Canada, Burmeda,and Egypt. In each of these countries I have seen admiration for the US changed to fear and distrust. The US is now know to be the bully of the world. Bush needs to be removed from office.

By Kevin Gaudette ( on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 3:19 pm: Edit Post

"If Kerry is elected, he will constantly be trying to protect his right flank, as he will be faced by congressional Republican pit bulls that will relentlessly attack him as soft on defense and weak on terrorism. Given his history, and that of other recent Democratic presidents, expect him to bend their way. We need more than a new president. We need a new direction, a new, better, humbler role for America in the world community. John Kerry, if elected president, might change course, but only if we demand it long and loud enough."

By Helen Haugsnes (210-62.dslpool.net - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 3:36 pm: Edit Post


By Patricia Giffin Hanberry (cache-ra07.proxy.aol.com - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:10 pm: Edit Post

Bush has managed to alienate our allies and make worse enemies of those who already did not like America. He has brought war and death to what was a, if not totally peaceful, as least stable world. And for all of the wrong reasons.

By RCVinLosAngeles (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade8a-141.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:12 pm: Edit Post

How can you support a Presidential candidate who finds out what he believes and what his policies are by reading the polls day in day out. What will Kerry do? What does he believe? Anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

By Jeanne Hanna (dialup1-5.solisys.com - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:12 pm: Edit Post

Any and and all of us that have served in the Peace Corps know that what the Bush Administration is doing undermines all that Peace Corps and Peace stand for. He is creating terrorists and fostering terrorism as I write. I truly believe he is dangerous and I am deeply saddened by the all that has happened in the name of freedom and "our safety" for the past 2 and 1/2 years. In the interest of humanity, we need a change. And we need to ensure that Kerry does what is necessary to change our direction in global politics.

By RCPVinLosAngeles (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade8a-141.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:18 pm: Edit Post

I have served in the Peace Corps and worked and lived in numerous countries around the world and I disagree. In fact, many RPCVs do, read other viewpoints on other threads. Dont be like the news organizations and think there is only one side.

By RPCVinLosAngeles (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade8a-141.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:24 pm: Edit Post

The amount of bias and misinformation in the media is astounding. Even smart, educated, experienced people such as RPCVs are misinformed and know little about the issues, and much less about the facts. This board proves that.

The Economy
The economy has suffered huge shocks in the last 4 years, for many many reasons that no President could have avoided. This President, who I do not necessarily support, inherited a recession from the last one. And yet, the unemployment rate sits at 5.6% last month, EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN CLINTON WAS RE-ELECTED. In fact, for most of the time Clinton was President in his first term, the unemployment rate rarely dipped below that last months number. And, Clinton inherited an economy that came OUT of a recession well before he took office. 4 years of peace and properity and rising taxes. Still, 5.6% unemployment. Those are the FACTS.

I dont remember anyone harping on Clinton for the economy then, as they are now with Bush. Instead, they lauded Clinton. Furthermore, the number of jobs lost that Kerry loves to soudbite, 2 million, is meaningless without the unemployment rate. Why? Because 100K+ people are added to our workforce EVERY MONTH. It is about the unemployment rate, which is exactly the same today as it was during Clinton's re-election campaign. FACT. TRUTH.

And this point being pushed by Kerry supporters that the unemployment rate doesnt count those who have given up looking for jobs, is another lie. NewsFlash: the dept of Commerce has kept records on that number for decades. And it is no different today than it was during Clinton's entire run in office. Look it up. Get the facts! This is just the beginning of an argument on the economy. I despise politics and lies more than anything, and as much as I dislike Bush, Kerry is the biggest liar and sleaze peddler that I can remember. How the heck can anyone trust that guy? At least I know where Bush stands.

If anyone can remember, the public was anti-war before in our history, when our Presidents sent 10s of thousands of soldiers to die, and millions more got wounded, to save and occupy an entire region. For a battle that was not in our backyard. And yet we went. Sound familiar? Stupid right. Wrong, it was WW1 and again WW2. This time, as bad as it is for one person to die, let alone 3000+ on 9/11, 600 soldiers have died. If someone asked any leader of a free country today that there could be real change, positive democratic change, in the Middle East, and a real reduction of the nuclear threat, but it would cost you public opinion and 1000 soldiers, there is not one true leader that would not take that deal. Not one.

The Middle East, because of racism towards Arabs/Muslims, or because of fear, or because of shortsightedness, has been left by the West to fester in hatred and human indignity for far too long. We were willing to send 100,000s of young men and women to die for White Europe, but not even less than 1000 for muslim Middle East. We were willing to spend $16B to rebuild a devastated White Europe in 1946 dollars, and yet we have a problem rebuilding muslim Middle East for far less. We were willing to OCCUPY White Europe (not to mention Japan) for a decade and keep our troops in White Europe (and Japan and Korea) for now 60 YEARS (and counting!!!) and yet we have a problem keeping them in muslim Middle East to rebuild an ambitious, renewed democratic region. FACTS. TRUTH.

The TRUTH is there, if you choose to open your minds to it. Lybia - capitulated in full, Pakistan - capitulated (finally admitted to spreading nukes to rogue nations led by irrational, hateful dictators), Iran - capitulated (finally admitted nuke program and let inspections in), Syria - partially capitulated (kicked terror orgs out and freed up press). N. Korea - admitted to nukes finally and is now more isolated in its position. All this would have been unthinkable without the toppling of a dictator in IRAQ. TRUTH.

Another TRUTH. A new Muslim democratic Constitution. Unthinkable, undoable before IRAQ. Not done yet, but the interim constitution holds tremendous promise - a fusion of islamic law and the inaliable individual human rights assured by democratic ideals. Truth.

World Opinion
Seriously, is this really what people care about? Should we care about what celebrities think too? Should we develop policy based on what others think, people who have dont have our responsibilities nor interests? Had we and the world not listened to France's appeals for appeasement (sound familiar, it should) and confronted a violent Germany on TWO OCASSIONS, the world would have AVOIDED the atrocities of two world wars, and the countless equally appalling events that followed in their wake, and to this day we still deal with. France and Germany are the LAST countries on Earth that have any moral standing when it comes to global security. We would all be speaking German or Russian had we continued to act according to their positions. Thankfully, we did not. And it took countless lives to respond to their actions and inactions. IRAQ, is a much smaller price to pay, albeit still too expensive, for a safer world. Such leadership and wisdom, the kind we displayed to the world against the popular wisdom of the day during two world wars, and other events, is what we are doing now. The politics destroying our morale reminds me of lawyers chasing ambulances, its repulsive.

Certainly, we live in a global community and we need to live as members of that community, working in harmony with our neighbors. So their opinions do matter. But its hard to imagine even the most peace loving peron accepting the counsel and advise on human atrocities of a dictator and government perpetrating those same atrocities, as the UN is currently structured to do. Similarly, if you accept that there are countries and governments and people who have different values and responsibilities and agendas then you must accept that we have to retain the right to act in our best interests. Despite this argument, we DID go to the UN and DID get approval.

This war was started on our soil first. People forget that terrorism reigned in Europe in the 70s. People were scared. The French wanted to pay the terrorists off. Thankfully, we didnt listen to them then. We dealt with it directly, the terrorists are gone. We will deal with it again. And we should. This is not a time to allow violent criminals acting on fear and hatred and their own agendas to rule our lives, when rogue irrational hateful dictators have nukes!!

By the way, I would still take that frantic call from France the next time they let a country run them over.

War is bad, it is never good. It is not an option. Not one we should ever choose. But the world is not made up of peace-loving, harmony-loving Buddhists (and neither is the Buddhist religion). Their are killers out their with passion and intolerance, and weapons, and they will not negotiate. We can only prevent another 9/11 or God forbid something worse with action. The court system and intelligence didnt stop 9/11 as Clinton thought they would after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Intelligence and courts never fully have nor ever will. Its a sad comment but a real one. TRUTH. We have to protect our families.

Kerry, where the heck does he stand??? Im not sure he even knows. But I AM sure that he will read the polls day in day out to find out.

By RPCVinLosAngeles ( on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:40 pm: Edit Post

Here is what is sad. Everyone on this side talks as though there is no rational person on the other side, and no rational reason to vote for Bush. This is why those on this side will get another 4 years of Bush. What is more sad, is that we let this stupid political system continue to exist, and we let the wholly irresponsible media to go about their profiteering masquerading as objective news go unchecked. I dont like Bush or Kerry. I dont like either party. I dont like the system that leaves us with such pathetic choices and a government that hasnt met the challenges of the world we live in since Reagan (and looking back even his policies for America were archaic). Without that change we will continue to get worthless choices like Bush and Kerry, and continue to think Presidents like Clinton were the best. The political system needs change!

By DemocracyInaction (adsl-32-85-249.mem.bellsouth.net - on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit Post


NADER 2004?
Bitch and moan about our "pathetic" political system all you want, but short of a revolution, positive change will be too slow for most of us and will likely come from inside. If you don't like either candidate, my suggestion would be to stay home come Nov. Voter apathy is a major reason why our system is so pathetic. cheers.

By bluechick ( on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit Post

Is this a serious question?

By RCVPinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade8a-141.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit Post


Actually, you are very close to the truth. My vote is with the majority ... a vote of no confidence. Our number grows with every election, as does the power of our vote. It took the Republicans only a few elections from their inception in the 1830s to unseat the Whigs as one of the two dominant parties. Lincoln was voted the first Republican President and since then, over 140 years, precious little has changed in our political system, accept that fewer and fewer go to voting booths. The time has come. A new party will emerge that will usher in a new political system with it. Vote as you indeed should and will - my vote is to make those in power less and less relevant and without a real mandate, and half the nation already votes this way. Additionally, this vote gives power to those that will soon come with a substantive platform, visionary leadership and provide real change. Far greater is at stake than the outcome of one or even a few elections. A new party will emerge soon enough, with the power and purpose, though not the platform, of the once principled and new Republican party.

By Janice Goudy ( on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 8:01 pm: Edit Post

Bush is the worst President in modern history: he has led us into a war in Iraq that is a disaster for this country; he plays a bait and switch game, i.e. the No Child Left Behind Act which he promoted and got passed and then refused to fund it; he has rolled back environmental protection acts that have been in place for decades and have been effective; he has alienated virtually the rest of the world; he is ignorant and arrogant; and he is sneaky, i.e. among other things, he has taken the discretionary money of the education department ($77 million) and funneled it to right wing religious groups who promote voucher programs, thereby passing any congressional oversight; he has held at least 2 American citizens for lenghy periods of time without due process or access to counsel which effectively nullifies the writ of habeas corpus. And, of course there is the Patriot Act. Democracy is in peril with this man in the president's office. Janice Goudy Phillippines 7

By VNightingale ( on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit Post

Kerry is the right one for the job.

By w. bosier (ws-204-108-96-10.lausd.k12.ca.us - on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit Post

Kerry has a brain.

By Nancy J. Galves (dialup-free-199.nmsu.edu - on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 4:06 pm: Edit Post

Bush is the most dangerous President we have ever had. He is an idealogue who acts on what he believes is right regardless of the facts. He hasn't a clue as to the needs of those less fortunate in our country much less anywhere else. He'll bankrupt this country so that all can be privatized. He's surrounded himself with people who are self-serving and closed minded. And that's just the beginning.

I'm not a bit Kerry fan, but I really fear for this country and our reputation if the world if we have 4 more years of Bush.

Nancy Galves
Peru 62-64

By jba ( on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:51 pm: Edit Post

Bush is a warmonger who would also like to impose his fanatical religious beliefs on the rest of us. At best he is an embarassment to U.S. citizens, Christians and intelligent life everywhere. We must defeat him.

By Arationalvoice (webproxy06qfe0.ssmb.com - on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:40 pm: Edit Post

Making the claims that some of you are making here - that Bush doesnt have a brain, that Bush is a warmonger, that Bush has fanatical religious beliefs, that he is a danger to the World, "the most dangerous President we have ever had" - make you all sound fanatical at best. You lose any credibility and are only addressing and impacting those who are as fanatical as yourselves. As long as you make anyone who thinks otherwise out to be fanatics as well, you will always get what you deserve - frustration that the world isnt going your way.

It is one thing to disagree, to believe that there were mistakes made, that actions were unjust, that causes were ill-founded, that execution was poorly handled, etc. It is quite another to make the irrational, extreme statements being made here. Im surprised by the fact that those making such statements are PCVs. There is no understanding, nor is there circumspection, nor are there any attempts to understand what others are thinking and why. You are part of the problem, in my opinion, not part of the solution. Its shameful.

By TheFantasticFanatic (cpe-024-165-161-120.midsouth.rr.com - on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 1:16 am: Edit Post

fa*nat*ic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Actions speak louder than words, and just about everything Bush does--or doesn't do--supports critics' claims....even the Supreme Court Justices are afraid to step down prior to election day. And his closest advisors tense up whenever he opens his mouth to say something.

Fanatical? He sees everything in black-and-white. He is trashing decades of progress we've made concerning the rights of workers, women, gays, clean air and water, medical research, etc. He believes everything Clinton did was wrong, ergo Bush must do the opposite to "make right"...He champions the causes of the homophobic-misogynist-rascist religious-right, BIG business as well as Big Brother, and the military-industrial complex. The man seriously believes he has been called upon by none other than GOD, to "lead" our nation during these times.

Bush has become a caricature of himself as a dim-wit, silver-spooned, tongue-tied one-liner, head-in-the-sand, bible-crutch toting, GOP poster-boy. And those are his redeemable qualities. His one yard stare and sideways grin does not exude the eminence of the leader of the free world. God help us all.

By Merle D. Rogers, Community College Instructor ( on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 6:15 pm: Edit Post

For me the best candidate is Sergent Shriver but since he won't run, Kerry is the closest thing to him...

By daniel (0-1pool136-1.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:54 am: Edit Post

I used to like John Kerry on many of his policy positions as my Senator in Massachusetts. I have lobbied for Peace Corps safety and attrition rates for Ten years now. We finally got something proposed in this direction after years of fighting.

Kerry did not help. He has been silent or against our concerns as former volunteers. He took other's positions and has not listened to his own constiuency in Massachusetts who have served and had safety gliches in service including many women.

He has drawbacks. There are people working with him who were with Clinton. They are not nice people or for that matter have a backbone on tough issues. They are the type of democrats who feed off misfortune in the party. That is why many did not support him in the primary.

Secondly, he is a snob to democrats in Massachusetts. I watched him snub an important women in my city committee here locally. It was not good and really rude. He has that side to him which is cold and revengeful. That is a problem.

Another example St. Anslems College NH: During the New Hamphsire primary. I watched firemen knock women to the ground and band members (firemen too) knock people to the ground. Kerry stood there and watched it. He did not stop and take a leadership position and help the women to thier feet nor anybody else. He actually had a snickering smile until we surrounded him with chants "people powered Howard". When we rebounded and surrounded him, he was very nervous and acknowledged our presence. He could not ignore it. Dean's people out numbered Kerry people 15 to 1.

It was a UPI writer who supports John Kerry that highlighted Dean's off cue cheer for his young supporters. Most of the press corps had worked with the Clinton and Gore press corps and Dean was not their candidate. Those folks have been working together for years and that relationship between press corps and campaign folks was not going to end. UPI and AP manipulated the public by zooming in on Dean and took his enthusiam out of context. It was not the off cue cheer though that ended Dean's campaign. The American people just weren't ready for Dean, a real reformer.

Thirdly: One of John Kerry's campaign consultants, who is one of the most powerful Consultants in the country now, after working for Clinton and Gore said to me, in the White House in 1992, "you will have a job in two months at Peace Corps or AID" during the first transition of Bill Clinton from older Shrub's administration. He lied and never followed through. He never called to explain why. Could and will this happen under a Kerry? Most likely. People don't change very much.

I would say yes until I am proven otherwise. Some of his consultants have to stop being like the Bush administration and understand there are folks who can help them. The problem is they don't want our help and this will help the Nader factor. His consultants don't care they are still getting a check.

The Democratic party has become "cut throat" and not a comprehensive unit because of these type of back door liars who help Kerry,Clinton and Gore. These consultants need to be put back in line and stop fighting with other democrats.

Kerry especially has to remember he would never had been US Senator if Paul Tsongas hadn't endorsed him.

Kerry could get a vote from me. No one has asked for my vote especially that consultant.

I may be a default vote because I am ABBB. However, I am concerned nothing much will change. That bothers me.

His campaign consultant should turn over a new leaf and walk his talk. That is leadership and if he does I will believe more in Kerry's positions.

Undecided on Kerry's character. I will get back to you in November.


By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit Post

Interesting comments, Daniel. Yes Kerry was given a pass by the same Media-types that dumped the rest (Dean, Kuchenich, et al). As an ABBB, it's tough but workable.

Here, Dean and Kucinich folks are still very alive and well; and committed to both retiring Bush AND holding the Democrats feet to the fire. There's much to reform everywhere.

Stay very active; that may be the best solution. It's not over yet; fact is, it's just begun.

By question (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade5b-42.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 9:03 pm: Edit Post

what does ABBB mean?

By daniel (0-1pool136-52.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:22 pm: Edit Post

Anything But Bush. ABB. Actually it is ABB. But I add an extra B for "Baby" Bush. OK, I know it is a cheap shot, but so are the checks going out to the unemployed. And no checks to people who are working their damnest at anything to keep afloat in this near recession/depression/reorganization for the war machine economy. I think we should start to do research on the people who went off the unemployment roles.

I think it is destablizing and capitalists at the top have skimmed off the middle class in the stock market. I also think that foreign investment left the country because Bush won the Presidency. I think it made a markets vulnerable and hurt other parts of the world which could have contributed to the radical actions of 9/11.

Yes, terrorism will happen anytime and those bandits should be punished, but the world economy depends on us too. Interdependence is very important. When we isloate ourselves monetarily we add fuel to the moneychanger's anger and frustration around the world.

Unfortunately, Kerry is the best alternative.

Long live the Dean Machine.


By daniel (0-1pool136-52.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:33 pm: Edit Post

Jim Thanks for the comments

Dennis really has some interesting ideas. Especially the Peace Corps Department concept. That really took me aback. Dean did not talk about something like that. Dennis sounded like Michael Harrington, a champion "in my eyes" on the War on Poverty.

In that Peace Department, he talked about curriculum in the schools about erasing hate and domestic violence through training. Fasicinating. One of the number problems in Police Departments today is Domestic Violence and not drugs if you can believe it.

Anyway enough of my rant for the day. Daniel

By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 1:43 am: Edit Post

ABBB = Any Body But Bush.

It's unfortunate but I guess I've been one for over 4-years. Ever since I commented: "If the Democrats can't beat these scoundrals, then something's fundamentally wrong."

Well, something went way way-wrong. I think it's a critical time.

While Dean and Kucinich may be out of the race, their supporters still bring energy and opinions to the table. Simple "ABBB" is no longer enough; Bush supporters are calling us on that. Kerry can both beat The Bush Gang, and he can lead us through difficult times into the future as well.

We must come together and come on hard with positive programs. It's not enough to just clean up the mess. We much each reach far beyond. We must lead the US, reducing the divisions that divide us.

And we must work with the rest of the world (that we in Peace Corps know well), towards a positive future. We must face up to and address serious world problems, providing hope to desperate people who now have none.

The ugly politics of lies, repression, death and destruction, are no way to live. The people of this planet deserve so much better. We can and we must do our best, rather than our worst.

The real questions are: Where and how do we go on from here?

By RPCVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade10c-32.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit Post


I think your comments about Kerry in your first post directly above were spot on. They speak of the much bigger problem we have in the US of having absolutely no good choices for President. The system is failing and needs to be revised. It hasnt been for 160 years.

But Im surprised by your next posting in which you criticize Bush for the "near recession/depression" and you give much empathy for the unemployed (as if to say Bush should go just for their sake alone). This bothers me, unless you thought the exact same thing about Clinton during his second run, which I would assume you did not. Why? Because, Clinton, during nearly HIS ENTIRE first administration, had nearly the same unemployment rate OR HIGHER as Bush has now. In fact, when Clinton was reelected it stood at 5.5%, one point below what it stood at in Feb this year, two points below March, and my guess it pretty much what it will be April of this year (we will know May 7).

So, point in FACT, employment is the SAME as it was OR BETTER than during Clintons first term, AND Clinton didnt have a recession when he entered office (Q4 before he entered office was the recovery)! Nor did he have 9/11, nor did he or anyone else uncover the corporate corruption that took place under his watch (that battered the economy during Bushs watch when it WAS uncovered), nor did he have WAR during his economy, nor did he have SARS, nor did he have the bubble burst (one that he helped create), among the many other ills Bush faced. And the FACT is, this economy is ROARING, 4% Q3, 8% Q4, 4.5% Q1! And dont tell me about manufacturing jobs, they have been going overseas since the 60s, most heavily after the 80s, and certainly no differently than during Clintons years. Its an obvious and old trend.

Cmon people. Be at least credible in your arguments. This is not the Peace Corps to me, this opportunistic gunslinging of unsubstantiated and unsupportable attacks. I dont like Bush anymore than anyone else, nor do I like the alternatives. Look, you want Bush gone, great. Say as much. But to perpetuate falsehoods and rumors and completely emotion charged insults without any basis in fact, is flat out wrong. This does not promote understanding and solving real problems, which I thought all of us PCVs believed in.

By pailes (0-1pool136-1.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 3:36 am: Edit Post

Thanks for your comments.

I graduated with my Masters Program in 1989. I will never forget 1989-90. It was worse than the statistics said the economy was. I feel very similair now. I can't back it up with stats because I don't think we measure unemployment, underemplyment and quality of life properly.

I want Bush to go because in general his principles and ideals are not my own. I believe the President should stir the economy with confidence. FDR did it and he did it with some government programs to stimulate the private sector.

I did feel more confident in the economy in the Clinton years though you do point out some interesting facts about the unemployment rates during his period.

Clinton: for me he is a DLC democrat and was nowhere near the stature of an FDR, John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. Also, for me I explained above the type of democrats I ran into during his time period. At least the Republicans get over disputes and hire each other. Clinton despised my former friend Tsongas and I really did not find that out until I was at the White house for five months. I think Tsongas had a good message and really would have helped this country. He was as honest as you are going to get in politics in my opinion.

Bush: The first thing that comes to mind is war when I think of him. I think we should strive for better, than killing people in slaughters both of Americans and foreign persons. I also believe strongly we should be in Pakistan finding the real "dark vader" of human kind if we are going to go to war at all.

Anyway thanks for your comments its late, gotta go to bed.

Thanks for affirming my beliefs on Kerry. The guy really does bother me because, as an average citizen, I do care about my country like you probably do too. However, he has a dismissive side of himself I can't stand.

Anyway, I will probably still vote for the guy, but again. I will feel manipulated when I go to the Polls.

Long live the Howard Deans, Bill Bradley's and Paul Tsongas's of the Democratic Party.


By daniel (0-1pool136-1.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 3:40 am: Edit Post


Thanks for the correction on abb.

By RCVPinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade10c-32.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 1:02 pm: Edit Post


you raise an interesting point. I dont think we measure employment, et al, quite that well either. And that should change, and many people dedicated to that line of work have proposed many good changes. There just isnt the political will to do anything, which underscores the systemic problem our political system has today. However, the stats are recorded exactly the same today as they were in the 80s and 90s, and 60s and 70s for that matter. So, we are comparing apples to apples here. And in that comparison, Clinton absolutely did no better for the economy (during a better time) than Bush in their first term. The argument is stronger for Bush, and in my opinion it is not even close.

Nevertheless, we have big problems today, not just with the economy, though I think the economy is being managed very well. The economy does need some tweaking but at the margins and we are fully capable of it. The systemic problems with our political system creates the situation where we have ineffective entrenched parties that are not solving our fundamental and long term problems. They do what they need at the moment of crisis and not much else. There is no political urgency to do anything more.

That is why we are in a time where we need a real, new, viable third party - not one based on an issue or a person. 50% of eligble voters do not vote, and the trend continues downward. That is fuel for change right there. And that fuel will power us out of this morass. A similar situation existed in the 1830s and not 20+ years later did bold change actually occur. Its possible, history has proven this.

By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:08 pm: Edit Post

I agree about the need for fundamental structural reform, a third party perhaps. Several years ago the root-crisis was campaign finance reform -- government sold to the highest contributor. However, since then one party has run totally out of control, while the other has failed their "Loyal Opposition" responsibilities for oversight.

First, the present Bush Disaster must be brought under control. It's an order of magnitude worse than the normal ebb and flow of politics as usual. Then, we can look at reform for the future. Only in my most cynical Machiavellian moments would I want it continuing worse, eventually precipating revolutionary reform. Voters need to regain control, before thinking of structural changes.

Peace Corps is only one, too-typical example of domestic and foreign programs sabotaged with self-serving policies, empty words, mismanagement or inadequate funding. The problems are extreme and everywhere.

By Nextinlineforunemployment (cpe-024-165-199-147.midsouth.rr.com - on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit Post

Statistics are not infallible--face it, numbers can be manipulated to support any political argument. Observation 1: if the economy is doing better than it was during the Clinton years, why is Bush running away from the Economy? And again, who is profiting from this good economy--certainly not the hardworking men and women stiffs of America.

One does not have to be a business/economics PhD to see the mess we are sinking into. Put down your Wall Street Journals and walk around the neighborhood. Observation 2: People are losing jobs and getting pissed because of it-- and that's a sorry fact about the Bush years, aka "trickle-up economics".

..guess he was AWOL from the Harvard Business School as well.

By RPCVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade4c-250.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:20 pm: Edit Post


clever ID, but as with your posting, ultimately it misses the point. Sure statistics can be manipulated. But its hard to manipulate a simple number like unemployment, especially when it is derived quite openly, available to everyone, from the Commerce Dept. And I disagree, I dont think Bush is running away from the economy. In fact, he talks about it when its brought up. Regardless, as a political strategy, I wouldnt touch it if I were Bush either. I would let Kerry keep talking about it so that when the overall economic numbers do become unassailable, as they most likely will by many - not all - measures by the end of the Summer, Kerry will lose all credibility.

That is what is happening anyway, with regard to Kerry and his protests on the economy, the "2 million jobs lost" number, for example. Guess what, that number shrinks every month, to the point where Kerry cant say it anymore, and doesnt say it anymore. So, he looks like a moron for having made it his charging call. As a strategy, I would let Kerry walk right into that trap, because he will not be able to escape. Its no accident that even the most ardent supporters of the Dem party are openly questioning, today, Kerry's ability to put out a clear, consistent message. The Gore Complex. How could Gore lose? He did.

"Manufacturing jobs?" No argument there. But, no one with a brain and objectivity that isnt a Dem will believe Kerry when he says that Bush is the reason why we are losing manufacturing jobs overseas. That is like saying Bush is the reason why Arabs hate Israel. Arabs hate Israel, Bush is President, therefore Arabs hate Israel because Bush is President. Faulty logic. Manufacturing jobs have left the US since the 60s. They did during Clintons terms. They are leaving today. Bush is President. Manufacturing jobs are leaving because Bush is President. Faulty logic.

Remember, many people lost jobs and were out of work during Clintons first term. More people were out of work during most of his entire first term than now are out of work with Bush in office, that is a fact. Those unemployed I would bet werent happy with Clinton then either. Many lost manufacturing jobs as well. Nothing different. So, your points are moot in that regard. Besides, your analysis that anyone can see "the mess we are sinking into" is purely emotional. I could take you to Watts during the Clinton years and using your analysis determine that the US was already in that "mess".

As for the comment that the economy is helping only the rich. Agreed, this is a real issue. But the problem grew to enormous proportions during Clintons two terms, not during Bushs. The gap between the rich and poor expanded the most during Clintons terms. That is a fact. I didnt hear anyone, not Kerry certainly, rip Clinton for not doing anything about that. So how is Bush now responsible if Clinton was given a free pass?? Bush should address it, but I dont see how the richest man running for President this year (Kerry) is the one to trust on that count, especially when that same man did ZERO on that accord when he had the chance during his many many years in the Senate. Did you know that Kerry never sponsored ONE BILL during his entire Senate career?! If he believes in so many things so strongly what the heck was he up to?

By the end of this Summer, this economy will have added significant new jobs and the unemployment rate will be at 5.2% to 5.4%, in my opinion, beating Clintons first term easily. If Kerry takes the bait, and argues economy, economy, economy ("2 million jobs"), he will surely lose, because the Reps will pummel him with irrefutable facts, as they should.

Look, Bush is not a good choice, Kerry is worse. But if you want Bush out be smart. The dems are being dumb, rehashing old stereotypes, playing on emotions, and disregarding fact and the real issues. If they keep doing that they will lose, and deservedly so, because you dont need to convince dems like you, you need to convince reps and independents who are not easily swayed by emotion. I would rather the real issues, and real facts, be central to the debate. They arent, and they wont be. That is the real tragedy. A real third party would call out both parties on their lies and ineffectiveness. Someday.

By Aaron Shaner (216-147-154-155.globalsat.net - on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:07 pm: Edit Post

George Bush simply does not have what it takes to be a leader to the american people. He has put us into a disastrous war with no real end in sight. I am a soldier currently serving in Mosul, I can see first hand that what we are doing is not working. We need a president who has a clue about what foreign policy is. We don't need another if you are not with us you are against us foreign policy. We need someone who has compassion for the middle class, someone who cares.

By John Deegan ( on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:46 pm: Edit Post


Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you also for you opinion. As I read the Coalition Provisional Authority website and all the work that has been done to this point, I have to disagree with you. What you see firsthand every day, and what we see nightly on our news broadcasts, are similar to what our police see and broadcasts show every day in our own country. Strife, violence, death. As bad as that may be, and it is bad, we still have a great society. From some reports I read from the BBC and even on our news, life goes on in IRAQ outside the violence and power plays from criminal elements, just as it does in the US. And the vast majority of the population greatly appreciates their new freedom, despite the problems that inevitably come with it. So, I humbly disagree with you. If democracy does take hold in the Middle East, it will be because of IRAQ and not despite it.

By John Deegan ( on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:49 pm: Edit Post


Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you also for you opinion. As I read the Coalition Provisional Authority website and all the work that has been done to this point, I have to disagree with you. What you see firsthand every day, and what we see nightly on our news broadcasts, are similar to what our police see and broadcasts show every day in our own country. Strife, violence, death. As bad as that may be, and it is bad, we still have a great society. From some reports I read from the BBC and even on our news, life goes on in IRAQ outside the violence and power plays from criminal elements, just as it does in the US. And the vast majority of the population greatly appreciates their new freedom, despite the problems that inevitably come with it. So, I humbly disagree with you. If democracy does take hold in the Middle East, it will be because of IRAQ and not despite it.

By ATHENA.ARCAYAN ( on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit Post

Thank you to all the volunteers...in all the different countries around the world...I WANT BUSH OUT OF OFFICE! PERIOD! He says one thing and his administration does another. He says NO
CHILD LEFT BEHIND...but there were major school budget cuts....he says I'M A WAR PRESIDENT but has no record of fighting in any wars...
I'm supporting a candidate who is PRO-CHOICE, who doesn't feed the public bulls*!# and who will clean up this mess that the younger Bush has made...
VOTE KERRY............

By Daniel ( on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:44 pm: Edit Post

Relatives of mine just closed an auto motive service after 32 years because of the economy.

7 months ago, I was delivering fish. That company went bankrupt after 45 years in business. Restaurants could not pay for the fish because of customer base.

Unemployment insurance has gone up 88% percent in the last year here in Massachusetts for small businesses.

Milk prices and food prices are up. Mandated by the government.

There is a problem with the economy. I don't care what statistics say people are hurting. People may not like Kerry, but they won't stand idle.

Bush is helping himself out of office.

Kerry will be the beneficiary of his avoidance of a problem.


By RPCVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade7a-18.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 3:15 am: Edit Post


Im sorry to see you just react to anything but real data. Your family and friends lost long term businesses. Well, while they lost, others are winning. Its the cycle of business. Its the cycle of life. The FACTS say the economy is humming right along, better than during Clintons run for a second term. The FACTS say something different than your feelings. As long as dems make the kinds of statements you are making you and the Dems will lose. Its that simple. You dont need to convince others with the same "feelings" as you. You need to convince those who think otherwise. To convince those people you need more than feelings, you need facts! You dont have facts because those facts that support your feelings dont exist, and if they existed Kerry would have used them and would have a clear message. He doesnt and even the liberal NY Times said as much on the Front Page today. Kerry reads polls to determine his positions. Polls change and so his opinions and positions change with them. He has no principles whatsoever. Its a disgrace, its repulsive, regardless of what you think of Bush. Admit as much and you might have some credibility. You can still say that Kerry, despite that gross fault, is better than Bush.

By daniel (0-1pool136-7.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 8:39 am: Edit Post


I guess you are a Bush supporter RPCVinLA. The facts are real people are being affected. If I was Kerry, I would be using the facts that people are making less money and prices are going up. But, I am not Kerry and I don't have the time or luxury to have an institute or a campaign committee to go out and prove "its the economy-----!" Phrase again and again. If I were the candidate I would prove the number who have dropped off the unemployment roles aren't finding work. I would prove that the many of the employed are temporary workers or making a signigantly less than they did a few years ago, like myself.

My relatives business nor the fish company bankrupt was not a business cycle. It was the bush cycle. His focus is war. Billions of dollars are being pumped overseas. What for? So human beings kill one another. During Clinton foreign investment was coming here and development of new business and the economy was going well.

I still have grave concerns about Kerry as I have mentioned above. Governor Dean would have been a great President and the health care crisis would have been solved by a real Doctor.

Right now I need to stay focused on my business and work harder because of this economy, so I have to go now.

One last point, the statistics at the Department of Labor are now run by Elaine Chao. She is one of George Bush's pit bulls. She won't let any statistic out of that agency that hurts the President that is my belief.

If she was a stand up person she would have overturned my Peace Corps case when she was director.

Have good day,


By RPCV ( on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit Post

It always comes back to Daniel's frustrations over his PC service and not obtaining a job someone promised ... Everyone on the PC staff or in Bush's administration - actually anyone who disagrees with his diatribes - are all part of a grand conspiracy to thwart Daniel ...

And regarding that job about which you stated some Clinton campaign official offered but never delivered on: You're obviously okay with favoratism as long as you're on the receiving end.

By RCPVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade7a-18.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 9:29 pm: Edit Post


Ok, your comments still carry no facts nor any understanding of economics, just your feelings and your own personal situation, which of course must speak for everyone's situation.

I can no longer have a rational conversation with you, its pointless for me and for you. Good luck with things.

And by the way, Ive said it many times, Im not a Bush supporter. I support the truth, wherever that may lead. I can care less where that actually is, in Bush camp, Kerry camp, or entirely someplace else, which seems to be the case.

By daniel (0-1pool136-42.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 9:19 am: Edit Post

To RPCV above with the whine tone,

There is no conspiracy. It is plain staffers at Peace Corps who just cover up safety incidents with their positions and decisions.

For favoritism, When you work on a campaign someday you will understand the combination of contributing to a candidate and the party. It is the combination of campaigning and merit educationally and in experience. Mark Gearan, did not have the experience and proved it. Bellamy, Baquette, Schneiderman overlooked the real issues of Peace Corps during that period and hurt safety and the program. Many people died or were killed because of their shortcomings. That is my opinion.

I notice you don't provide your name.

I noticed you pointed out my posting. I must get under your skin or you wouldn't have commented.


By daniel (0-1pool136-42.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit Post


Ok, I did get personal. I did point out my micro-economics situation and local companies here in massachusetts, which are micro-economic in scale to the bigger picture of the country.

During my service in Peace Corps, I realized how important Micro-economics of a village is to a region and to the whole country. The best laid Macroeconomic plans, like the Bush tax cut to stimulate growth needs to meet half way with the micro sectors of our economy. I don't see much evidence of this expect for home building and micro manufacturig jobs related to the defense industry. If you can point out others I would like to hear them.

I don't have alot of time to study these issues expect for what I read and see.

I know a large amount of foreign investment pulled out under the Bush administration and this has hurt our economy, no doubt.

I guess you aren't Bush supporter.

I do think you have to measure statistics on labor with a wide eye. Statistics are subjective and measured in all different ways. I worked the Bureau of Labor statistics in the past and know the analysts who produce these numbers. Many agree many sectors of our economy are not measured correctly.

Thanks for your input, Good luck to you to.


By Mike Miller (webproxy05qfe0.ssmb.com - on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 7:13 pm: Edit Post

I like this poster RPCVinLa even though I might not agree with him. It looks like he was right on the Bush economy. There was another big jump in jobs again today and I read economists saying the same is expected in the months to come. I think this will help Bush and make Kerry sound negative if he keeps trying to attack on this subject. I am trying to be honest like RCPViLa is. Bushs handling of the war is my sticking point. I cannot vote for him on that grounds. Like others here, I am concerned about Kerry's flip-flopping. I too am not sure where he stands. As of now though, I would vote for him over Bush. Like others here, I wish we had other choices.

By RPCV ( - on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit Post

Daniel -

I'll not spend time on the whiner calling others whiners ...

It's interesting, however, to note the hypocritical and inconsistent remarks in your postings. Don't you know, all of the PC directors you mention above contributed their time to campaigns and therefore received political appointments? I suppose the appointments were made based on the concept of merit that you include in your post. I'm also sure you'll agree that the best qualified should receive such jobs. For positions not politically appointed, one who obtained a "promised" job slot would be getting a pass on the principles of competition. Did working on a campaign somehow make you better qualified than another for that USAID position who so desired?

Daniel writes: "There is no conspiracy. It is plain staffers at Peace Corps who just cover up safety incidents with their positions and decisions."

In various postings, you've named every director since the time of your service (>15 years ago?!?) and have cast dispersions on any staff member who 'dares' disagree with you. Your statement above speaks for itself. There are those of us who actually do something to improve the program, and then there are those, such as yourself, who only make noise. Improvements are developing inspite of you, not because of you. The DDN articles and the hearings had nothing to do with your constant whining (never saw your name mentioned). You've alienated persons on every side of the safety and security issue, and your credibility is nill.

Daniel writes: "I noticed you pointed out my posting. I must get under your skin or you wouldn't have commented."

Oh, perhaps a bit. However, I would encourage anyone who believes Daniel will help your cause to peruse all of his postings. You'll soon learn that he is not one to side with. If you have a concern about volunteer support and/or feel that PC is not appropriately addressing your concerns, please contact your senator and/or representative. Daniel has alientated too many politicians, staff, RPCVs and many others to be of help.

By RPCV ( on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit Post

I apologize for digressing from the discussion theme in the above post. I'll not do so in future posts.

I support Kerry, as I believe it will take a new president to restore US credibility in the world. I am not absolutely ABB, however, the Bush administration has alienated Europe, the Middle East and many other parts of the world. They've made too many mistakes in committing us to war and in poor planning for "post-war" restoration of peace in Iraq.

Presidents have little direct impact on the economy through fiscal policies. Bush did indeed inherit a recession, however, it's likely the US economy would have recovered without his tax cuts. Although support of a growth oriented economic climate is important, Bush cannot be primarily credited with this recovery anymore than Clinton could for the recovery - and subsequent bubble - on his watch (which many will tell you started before he took office, under the "no new Taxes" Bush I).

By RPCV ( on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit Post

I apologize for digressing from the discussion theme in the above post. I'll not do so in future posts.

I support Kerry, as I believe it will take a new president to restore US credibility in the world. I am not absolutely ABB, however, the Bush administration has alienated Europe, the Middle East and many other parts of the world. They've made too many mistakes in committing us to war and in poor planning for "post-war" restoration of peace in Iraq.

Presidents have little direct impact on the economy through fiscal policies. Bush did indeed inherit a recession, however, it's likely the US economy would have recovered without his tax cuts. Although support of a growth oriented economic climate is important, Bush cannot be primarily credited with this recovery anymore than Clinton could for the recovery - and subsequent bubble - on his watch (which many will tell you started before he took office, under the "no new Taxes" Bush I).

By Daniel (0-1pool136-10.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 5:07 am: Edit Post


You post all over the place when I post.

I don't have to have my name mentioned.

The language is in the bill, isn't it former staffer? Cases related to safety will be reviewed won't they?

I notice you never mention your name. You seem to know alot about the directors of the past and their contributions.

Remember this, people died in unprecendented numbers and safety related cases went off the charts during those periods. Those directors were arrogant to rape, death and the protection of volunteers in the field. I peronally hold them accountable because of short sighted planning and not believing reports from volunteers in the field.

If you were one of those staffers during Clinton or Bush you peronally should be ashamed of yourself.

Credibility lies in the truth and those staffers knew these situations were happening.

Now, will you be seeking a job with Peace Corps. Will Kerry rehired the Clinton types who destroyed people's lives who joined Peace Corps in good faith.

When you can not put your name out there, you are afraid of something and that speaks to credibility.

To other posters, sorry I got away from the subject at hand.


By daniel (0-1pool136-10.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 5:22 am: Edit Post

Related to Peace Corps policy and the Presidential campaign.

Both Bush and Kerry support increase numbers of Volunteers.

However, neither has talked about the safety problems.

Both ignore prevention of safety in the field. Kerry on the foriegn relations committee has had many constituents in these circumstances. He has done nothing in this regard in the Senate Foreign relations committee to advance safety of volunteers in the field. His staff will squelch any concerns. Just ask volunteers from Massachusetts who have gone through these situations.

This is another reason I have a hard time voting for him. He will have to tell me personally he will place two volunteers together and safety issues from the past will be remedied before I will support him.

Would he send his daughter out to say an Islamic Country alone into service?

There is a question for Kerry.


By RPCVinLA ( on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit Post


I agree that Presidents have little control over the economy. This is something the press doesnt care to mention, particularly during Clintons years when they basically credited him with singlehandedly creating the boom, and still do, despite it being so obviously not true. However, Presidents at times do have a direct impact on the economy. Presidents do have levers.

Bush is following the Reagan model in that way. He pushed through the tax/recovery bill last summer that went into effect immediately, unlike most tax legislation, in order to reap the benefits well before the election (it usually takes 9 months or so for incentives to kick start the economy). The tax bill was Bush's plan and it is the primary reason why you are seeing such a strong recovery, albeit only recently with jobs. The downside to the tax/recovery bill is the fact that it is deficit rich (ok, and for liberals, maybe puts more money into rich hands). Reagan proved with a similar plan that an economic recovery will pay for itself, or mostly, because tax revenues would rise to meet the deficit. Already we are seeing this play out, with the announcement yesterday that the deficit is much lower than anticipated. Why? Because tax revenues have grown, as a result of the booming economy.

So, these recent events will solve Bushs problem with the economy, in my opinion. Unemployment is down to 5.6% (remember Clinton was re-elected with a 5.5% rate). My guess in earlier posts that the rate will be in the 5.2 to 5.4% range by end of summer looks easy. So, Kerry now is saying that Bush is the "first President since the Great Depression to lose jobs on his watch." Guess hes finally figured out the "2 million jobs lost" jab wont stick. Obviously, if we get down to 5.4% unemployment, or lower, Kerry's new jab wont stick either.

And now Kerry, sounding more and more like Gore, is promising "10 million new jobs" if he is elected. That is impossible. I am looking at the figures right now. Unemployment and the end of last year stood at 8.77 million persons. Add about 5.2 million net new persons to the labor force after 4 years of Kerry (1.4m a year) equalling a total of say 14 million unemployed (8.77 + 5.2). For those paying attention, Im assuming, conservatively, that this last year of Bush will produce a net of 0 new unemployed. If Kerry is right, then we would only have 4 million unemployed after his first term (14 million unemployed - 10 million new jobs). That would produce an unemployment rate of around 2.7% (4m unemployed / 155 million civilian labor force by the end of his term). Are you kidding me? 2.7% UNEMPLOYMENT?? The last time we had that level of unemployment was during WW2.

Why doesnt the media grill him on this?? That is another issue that would take a book to delve into.

On the War, international relations, etc., what would Kerry do differently? Does it matter that during our greatest moments we acted against intl opinion, as we are in part now? Does it matter that the public was against WW1 and WW2, and yet we count these as great triumphs of will and good? Does it matter that during most of our greatest triumphs, the French and the Germans were against us?


By daniel (0-1pool136-26.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 4:46 pm: Edit Post

He (Clinton) created a sense of confidence and healing for the nation for major investors. His moral escapades were his repressed problems from the past, but his ability to hire the right people at treasury such as Rueben provided the NY investors with a sense of confidence.

Bush provides us with a sense of doom, gloom, fear and war. Bush hired O'Neil and look what he says about Bush.

That was intangible with Clinton's claim to the economic boom.

By RPCVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade10c-111.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 5:02 pm: Edit Post


really, give it up. I said Im not carrying on a discussion with you so dont carry on one with me. You continue to talk "feelings", "intangibles" .. enough already. I was polite in telling you that I will not waste my talking such meaningless touchy feely stuff. It carries no factual weight whatsoever, and very little relevance. You are showing you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is my last post in reply to you.


By RPCV ( - on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 1:09 pm: Edit Post


On the whole, I agree with your economic analysis, having a strong background in economics myself. Indeed I find it ridiculous for the candidates to specifically forecast creating X number of jobs in their economic plans. The US enjoys an employment rate, even during periods of recession, envied by our friends in Europe.

Outsourcing based on comparative advantage is a result of more dynamic - and in the long term healthy - trade relations. However, domestic policy must firmly address the immediate social problems attendant to significant economic transitons, whether related to a reduction in the manufacture of horse carriages at the dawning of the automobile age or the outsourcing of computer services during the IT era.

Tax reductions and other Fed tools are levers at the disposal of congress and, to some degree, a means for the administration to influence economic conditions in the short to intermediate terms. The US, despite periodic protectionist legislation, is the most open economy in the world, and this has been a strength.

On the other hand, taxes are necessary in order to provide common goods and services such as defense, infrastructure, etc. Recent reports support that states have managed to balance budgets through economic growth and the resulting increase in tax revenues, leveraged further through increases in key taxes and fees.

The current domestic economy will not influence my vote nearly as much as the issue of leadership in the global community. The Bush administration has achieved a pattern of leadership failure. Yes, the US must act according to principle and not for popularity. However, unlike WWII (a war in which US participation was urgently requested from 1939 -- a very different situation than in Iraq today), the reason for going to war in Iraq was largely focused on WMD and al Queda ties. There are no WMD in Iraq, and the al Queda ties came about as a result of the war. I am still taken aback at the administration's poor planning for events that were largely anticipated by many experts, from the looting in Bahdad in the early days of the war to the militant insurgencies to the command environment that led to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. The "hearts and minds" campaign has been pitiful.

Taking WMD out of the equation, I would argue that the international community did indeed need to act with more resolve and to remove Sadam's regime from power. However, it was not necessary to start this war in 2003 (i.e., to build up forces to the point of no return), and to date the US approach (virtually unilateral) has possibly increased the dangers of terrorism. Reactive, ad hoc rationalizations, such as "we're taking the fight to al Queda in the Middle East (Iraq) instead of at home" are bunk. The war in Iraq placed a strain on resources to more effectively follow through with our commitmenet in Afghanistan and has actually impeded efforts to combat terrorism.

As for Kerry, he will follow through with the US commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan (achieving stability and providing aid), repair international relations from a position of strength and respect, and manage the economy and other domestic programs as a centrist, despite a liberal track record. Kerry does, however, have much work ahead as he defines his leadership and policies in the coming months. He also needs to demonstrate that, while an intelligent leader recognizes and incorporates nuances, an effective president also understands that one can never possess 100% certainty, must act with determination and make timely decisions. Leadership requires intellect and an ability to act, as well as sound judgement. Bush has been found lacking ...

By RPCVinLA (ca-stmnca-cuda1-blade9b-59.stmnca.adelphia.net - on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit Post


I agree with you on the economy, and you are right, Europeans have envied our employment situation for decades. And certainly, there are levers that the President and Congress should use to transition better to an IT economy, as you say. In that sense, the outsourcing problem should be addressed. Is is a critical campaign issue? I agree with you that it is not.

I disagree with you on Kerry and the economy though. It is no accident that Wall Street is waiting nervously on the outcome of this election, despite the very public opinions of Buffett. Had this been a close election between Bush and say Clinton, Wall Street would be running full speed on all cylinders. But when Kerry calls outsourcing CEOs "traitors" he is being more left than centrist - and certainly not "open" - and it scares executives and economists. So does his insinuations that he will repeal the tax act. Moves of either sort will hurt this economy and the threat of him winning in some ways is already doing just that. I have a great portion of my own portfolio out of this market because of Kerry potentially winning.

On the intl front, I would score Bush low as well, but not as low as you. I agree that IRAQ perhaps should have scaled up more slowly. He boxed himself in too quickly and foolishly. However, he did seek and get international approval, though that itself is somewhat in question. He did act forcefully and without waver. And I do believe he did do it with the best of intentions, not some ridiculous "war for oil" agenda or other such reason. And, like you, I believe that the military and State Dept handled planning very poorly. The message was flawed as well. Republicans are the WORST at lets call it public relations, getting the message out, unless the situation is simple black and white, clear good vs clear evil (Reagan). In this case, we suffered a great deal because of this huge flaw, and continue to do so, though strangely I think the Republicans are finally starting to understand this. I think the Arab world would have understood, though not accepted, his position had he delivered a clear message earlier and more often directly to them and the world. He is a horrible President in this regard.

There are mitigating factors to his great failures, however, that I cannot overlook. They speak to the reasons for going to war, which of course are in question. WMD not found. Al Qeada link tenuous at best. The world may not have requested intervention, but Iraquis were probably happy. But here is where I want to know what Bush knew and what our intelligence community knew, and what were their real goals. We would possibly have NEVER had public confirmation of the nefarious underworld WMD link to the renegade Pakistani scientist were it not for IRAQ, at least before a mushroom cloud told us. The public confession of the nuclear scientist brought daylight on this network leading to numerous and important discoveries of just how far it spread and where our weaknesses lie. It also brought Libya into the world of citizens and exposed Malaysia, Iran, Syria and N. Korea to the intl community as conspirators in a dangerous attempt to win money and power in the scary WMD market.

Now, as a result, the intl community has a clear and unassailable mission (regardless of IRAQ): to rid the world of this most dangerous threat. And none of these conspirators can now deny their complicity nor their duty (and so much evidence of their about-face can already be seen). This places the pressure squarely on Al Qaeda, and their ilk. Clearly, Al Qaeda are responding by killing their own in an attempt to abate this pressure, a fatal strategy that will surely lead to their downfall (although they may be benefitting short term with recruitment due to the war). All this because of IRAQ.

So, is it worth it? Yes. Does the end justify the means?? No, but Im happy to be where we are at, despite the obvious problems. Should Bush credit from this? Hard to say. Short term answer is no, but longer term history might be kinder to him, though there is much left to play out.

And on another point that I personally think is important. Democracy in the Middle East. Can it happen? Is it much more possible now? With all the money and energy and goodwill we have wasted in Palestine, surely we have to come to a point where the costs outweight the benefits. Another track has to be tried. This may be it - A constitution based on democratic principles, a Bill of Rights, and still partially based on Islamic Law, in a Middle East country. Is this possible? Surely, we dont know yet, but the construct is already there in IRAQ. And this is a most important evolution that would not have materialized otherwise in any near future were it not for IRAQ. This does not help the Palestine issue directly. It helps the Middle East directly, which helps the Palestine issue.

We look back with pride that we battled for this same concept in Europe, though we spent HUNDREDS of thousands of lives and countless billions doing it. We did this for, and I will use this term in the scope of an academic exercise, WASPS. We spent Billions of dollars on this effort as well as the reconstruction, in 1940 dollars. We occupied Europe for 9 years after the end of that effort, and are STILL there today with our armies. We even did the same with Japan (10 year occupation, 30 if you count Okinawa, and we are still there today with our armies) and Korea (50 years and still there).

Why can we not accept a much much smaller cost for the sake of Arabs?? Less than a ONE thousand soldiers dead to liberate such a huge and important country in such a violent place, and give it and the region a hope for a peaceful and prosperous future, and at much less the cost of WW2? It sounds morose to think about in this manner, but give that to Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower and they would have jumped at that deal. I think there is an inherent racism towards Arabs that is preventing a more difficult but necessary view of these events. Make IRAQ Germany & France together and we might be having a different discussion.

Did Bush go to war too quickly? yes, in my opinion. Did he go about it correctly? on the whole, average, he went to the UN. Did he execute well? on the whole, average. Did he manage the aftermath well? very poorly. Did he manage intl opinion well? very poorly. Is it worth it to change leadership to Kerry, for these reasons? Not sure, but unlikely. I cannot understand what Kerry is about, what he will do. He has no clear plan, no strategy. He just says what his opinion pollsters tell him to say each day, each week, and that changes of course. He is the worst of breed in politics and leadership. Whereas Bush acts on belief (however much you disagree) you know where he stands and what he might do. With Kerry, we wont know until he does it. I disagree with you, Bush has sound judgment, just very narrow judgment. He has acted. And he is narrowly intelligent (I just made that up - I quite like it).

Bush and Kerry are two bad choices in a world that needs leadership with more desperation as time passes. I cannot begrudge someone for voting for Kerry, though I think Bush is a better choice in the gamble. I choose to vote with the majority. Someday, and the day grows sooner, we will be an overwhelming force.


By R. W. Brown (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit Post

Kerry is better qualified to fight unconventional wars based on his experience in Vietrnam and in the U.S. Senate. Bush's international strategy allienated our allies and threatens to isolate us internationally. My perception of Kerry is that he is better qualified to combat poverty and hunger, the real threat to national security.

By Ernest Brashears (adsl-69-154-25-176.dsl.okcyok.swbell.net - on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:59 pm: Edit Post

President Bush keeps asking "Is the world better off without Sadum Hussan?" I would like to know if the United States is better off with out the 1,ooo plus young men and women Bush has sacrificed to attain his goal to punish Sadum Hussan. This war has not been about weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had proven Iraq did not have any weapons of mass distruction. This War has not been about terrorism. Alqaida and Osama Ben Lauden had no conections to Sadum Hussam. As a matter of fact these two were bitter enemies. And it was not about the ammount of oil they may have produced. This war was waged solely because Sadum Hussan had threatend President's father.

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.