The conclusion

[kierthos]

I've come to the conclusion (what, just now? No, a while back) that both candidates for President are equally inept, but in their own special ways.

Bush. What can be said about Bush that hasn't already been said badly by thousands of comedians, and said greatly by dozens? Hell, Jon Stewart skewers El Shrubbo and the "Shrub Council on replacing logic with pseudo-religion and idiocy" (aka the Presidential Staff) better then I ever could. The man has the intelligence of a bruised store melon, and the military competance of a pack mule. About the only thing that can't be said about him is that he doesn't actively masturbate into the American flag.

Kerry. He reminds me so much of the Smiler from Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan (even though Edwards resembles the Smiler to a much greater degree.) That he will do or say anything to win the office of the President. Except, of course, that the Smiler actually wins, and Kerry seems to be in a slow death spiral. The man can't win for losing. He was actually in Vietnam, as opposed to National Guard crybaby GWB, but amazingly, that's been used against him (successfully) by special interest groups. Kerry is trying to appeal to to many of the wrong groups, and not enough of the right groups. (Although one could actually hope someone could be elected to the Presidency on the basis of his beliefs that didn't change with the latest exit polls, I don't see that happening this century. Didn't happen in the last half of the last one either.)

So, Bush, who is actually incompetent at anything resembling foreign policy, or any domestic fiscal policy that doesn't line the pockets of his big business friends, or Kerry, who might make a decent President if he could get his thumb out of his ass long enough to do something that would get him positive numbers over Bush.

*sigh*

Mickey Mouse is looking better and better as a write-in candidate.

Comments

[scottmorrison.livejournal.com]

I hope you get there at some point, because looking at the two primary US political parties from the outside, the only differences between them are very cosmetic ones (money being the largest naturally). You might wake up in twenty years to a fancy dressed dictatorship, especially if there is a major economic collapse and the dollar ceases to be the international currency of choice (looking increasingly more likely). The perception of Third Parties is caused by the propaganda of the other two, in part because they can all be incarcerated and discarded by that one term. It'll be very hard to overcome - but other countries overcome worse every year, often looking to America for inspiration.

Good Luck.

[evilraff.livejournal.com]

As an aside, do you think that Ventura, like Schwarzenegger, was elected because he's a celebrity? I'm posing this as a question more than a statement because i'm not familiar enough with the man or his policies to answer it myself.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

I think that helped with it, certainly.

Ventura was definitely in the right place at the right time, and he knew what he wanted to do. He spoke very decisively, and it got the voters attention.

Ahnold (Schwarzenegger) pretty much was in the same situation, although instead of running as an indep, he stayed with the Republican party (he has been a prominent supporter of the Republicans for a very long time), and it worked out for him. Of course, another big boost was the fact that the previous Governor of California was a Democrat, and had garnered a lot of ill will among the voters.