[an error occurred while processing this directive]
BBC News
watch One-Minute World News
Languages
Last Updated: Monday, 6 September, 2004, 09:14 GMT 10:14 UK
Voters' views: Nancy O'Leary Pew
In the run up to the American presidential elections we will be asking a panel of voters to share their views on the key issues. Here they give their opinion on last week's Republican convention.

Laura Stietz
Laura Stietz:
Sidney, New York

Neil Sherman
Neil Sherman:
Germantown, Tenn.

Jorge Caspary
Jorge Caspary:
Tallahassee, Florida
Corey Harrison
Corey Harrison:
Chicago, Illinois

Nancy O'Leary Pew
Nancy Pew:
Seattle, Washington

Gary Webb
Gary Webb:
Sacramento, C'fornia

Nancy O'Leary Pew

MEET THE PANEL
Name: Nancy O'Leary Pew
Age: 48
Lives: Seattle, Washington
Works: Librarian
Current voting intention: Democrat
In 10 words or less: "Concerned American wife, mother, grandmother, librarian, friend, neighbour, activist"
The Republican convention was a celebration of the George W Bush administration.

The Republican pundits approved of it and some undecided voters will like the simplified message and may be influenced to vote for Bush in November.

I found the whole production to be full of lies, with overly simplified statements that mislead, with intellectually bankrupt arguments, mean spirited and dishonest attacks on Kerry and Edwards and the belief that it is America's destiny and mission to make over the world in our own image, even as our constitutional rights and the protections of social programmes are being eroded at home.

Bush also proclaims support for our troops but he has cut combat pay, veterans' benefits and other services.

Our panel - Where they live

The Republicans want average Americans to identify with the interests of the very rich.

I am more determined than ever to vote for John Kerry, as I do not trust what the president tells us and I totally disagree with most of his "achievements".

These include the war in Iraq, the tax cut that helped wealthy Americans, the "Clear Skies Act" that allow more air pollution, the "Healthy Forests Act" that allows more destruction of forests for the benefit of Big Business and the implementation of the "No Child Left Behind" education plan.

Bush's plans for Homeland Security, the phoney terror alerts raised at politically expedient times, the erosion of workers' rights and so many other Bush goals are the antithesis of what I believe our country needs.


Send us your comments on Nancy's views using the form below.

Your comments:

I'd like to hear Kerry's plan for anything
Joyce Watkins, Carrboro, USA
Yikes! If Bush is the antithesis of what we need, what has Kerry proposed that would be better for this country? In truth, nothing. For the record I am an independent leaning toward conservative as far as my political views go. My position is this: if someone tells me he is going to destroy my freedom and kill me in the process, I have a tendency to believe him and this is the message that terrorists have sent us. If you don't think Iraq was supporting terrorism, you haven't been paying attention. I'd like to hear Kerry's plan for anything. As far as mean spirited attacks, are you aware of the vicious attacks that have been directed at Bush? If not take a look at the web sites that display them and you'll get a real taste of what mean spirited means.
Joyce Watkins, Carrboro, USA

Your claim of the convention being "full of lies, with overly simplified statements that mislead, with intellectually bankrupt arguments, mean spirited and dishonest attacks on Kerry and Edwards" might actually carry some weight with me if you were able to provide specific evidence supporting your view. But you say, "Bush also proclaims support for our troops but he has cut combat pay, veterans' benefits and other services". I know for a fact that combat pay has not been cut. Some bean counter at the Pentagon had a plan to cut 157,000 troops' combat pay and Bush stepped in and stopped it.
Vancouver Johnson, Houston, Texas, USA

I couldn't agree with Nancy more. The only pre-emptive strike policy we need is to dump Bush before he causes any more damage to the United States, and the greater world which must live with the consequences of his decisions.
Michael Pollak, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Kerry had a year of media exposure and still we don't know the real John Kerry. He had a week of the Democratic convention and he wasted his chance by talking too much about Vietnam. He should have outlined his vision for the next four years but he failed to do so. Also, he should be able to explain his voting records in the Senate. Over the next 60 days can he finally explain his stand on Iraq? How can you support a candidate who makes everything so complex? At least with Bush, you know what to expect but with Kerry, honestly, I don't have a clue.
Raj, North Carolina, USA

Nancy: It is your views that give comfort to the average, compassionate, socially conscious individuals throughout the rest of the world that looks at the present American administration with suspicion, anger and fear.
Mark Elliot, Brighton, UK

I've never felt so stressed about my own country
Donna Petty, Lexington, SC, USA
Right on, Nancy! You hit the nail on the head. I've voted both ways in the past, but never in my life have seen such an administration like this one. Why aren't more Americans angry about this? Between worsening economics for the average worker, and the threat of terror attacks, I've never felt so stressed about my own country. The simple fact that he's turned most of the world against us should sound a major alarm.
Donna Petty, Lexington, SC, USA

I see that the Dems have sold Nancy on Bush having "cut veterans' benefits". All the Secretary of Veterans Affairs did was cease enrolment for the upper income, non-disabled veterans. This is because the Clinton administration failed to provide funding, yet kept increasing enrolment without providing the VA with the resources to accommodate these veterans. They are telling you a half-truth. I know. I work for the VA.
Jenna, Harrisburg, USA

It's reassuring to know that some Americans are thinking about what's best for their country and realising that George W Bush is not it! Surely it is obvious by now that he is not fit to govern the largest economy in the world.
Tom Sweeney, Castle Donington, UK

Nancy needs to learn the facts. This president in one term has increased spending on education more than the previous administration did in two terms. The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich as the Democrats would have you believe. As a staunch independent, I can see that both sides need to read more and become objective. This election is about more than just Iraq. It is about security and the economy in that order.
Ron Helson, Houston, Texas, USA

John Kerry's problem is John Kerry!
Godwin Mukoro, Luton, UK
John Kerry's problem is John Kerry! Talk about the hens coming home to roost. This man that has made a career out of calling great men like Ronald Reagan and veterans names, now wants the same people he has been aloof towards to vote for him? The Democrats must be bereft of ideas to think this man would win the presidency.
Godwin Mukoro, Luton, UK

Nancy: I'm curious about your "phoney terror alerts" statement. Unless you work for either the CIA or al Qaeda how do you know if they're phoney or not? Can you tell me when and where the next attack is so I can avoid being there, please? Personally I'd rather have a few false alarms rather than not be warned of a real attack.
Peter, Nottingham, UK

A lot of rhetoric, Nancy, mixed in with tired one-liners that Democrats use when they have no credible facts to support their claims. As with many of your previous posts, I'm still waiting for the answer as to which of your constitutional rights have been taken away. Which social programs have been eroded? Do you not pay enough taxes to support the poor and needy in this country? My family is financially choking on high taxes. You needle Bush for "overly simplified statements that mislead". Where are your facts to support your charges against the president?
Lisa, New Richmond, Wisconsin, USA

Lisa, when you decrease taxes 'across the board' who gains the most? The rich of course. Cutting taxes by the same percentage points for you and the same for the rich is not progressive. You save a tiny amount, the rich save millions. This does not help you and only helps the rich, it is bad for the US and bad for society.
Peter, London, UK

At last, someone with an opinion. This lady is not easily fooled and asks pertinent questions. The US media, which I monitor closely, do not ask questions that ruffle feathers. Shame on them. Nancy would make a very fine reporter indeed.
Michael, Brussels, Belgium




RELATED BBC LINKS:


PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia
UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health
Have Your Say | In Pictures | Week at a Glance | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes
Americas Africa Europe Middle East South Asia Asia Pacific