kierthos | The conclusion

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I can't vote, being a Limey Brit and all, but if i could i'd be stuck between two choices: vote Nader, who hasn't a chance but seems at least halfway worth the vote, or vote Kerry, who isn't worth putting any more faith in than your average politician, so that it goes against Bush. I think i'd choose the former.

Ellis based the Smiler on Tony Blair, something that is very thinly disguised. Blair constantly seems like he's having a laugh, like he can't believe these shmucks put him where he is.

Also a Brit, but I've said a number of times in comments to other people - find a third party candidate you believe in and who represents you and your beliefs, then drag them up from local politics level to Presidential level. It'll take a few years to take affect, but the US really needs to break the cycle on the two party system. In the mean time, do everything you can to keep Bush out of office again. Things can only get worse if he wins again.

As for Nader: depending on where you are, voting for him is probably the wrong way to go. Apparently sneaky Republican political strategists are attempting to get him on the election ballot in states where he could split the Democrats vote even though he isn't trying to get on them himself.

Apparently Kerry is not doing as badly as generally thought though, have a look at this article : http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/19/INGJ68OT8L1.DTL (found via http://www.laurennmccubbin.com/index.php). Despite what the polls may say (and I never trust polls, they're far to easy to manipulate for the result you want), Kerry still has a good chance of beating Bush - no matter how many dirty tricks Bush and cronies may use.

Aside from the fact that military service was so unimportant when CLINTON was running, here's a tidbit...

W's father was director of the CIA...

Durring Nam...

You don't send the son of the head of a Federal agency (any agency, but especially the CIA) to fight on forgein soil...

McCain's Father (The John Mccain who was a POW for 5 years) was promoted to Admiral of the Pacific Fleet while John was a POW...

They offered to let him go, but good man he is he refused ("First captured, first released... Let that guy go...").

Had the man been promoted BEFORE he was shot down, McCain would have been sent stateside too...

Some things you don't risk...

And Kerry's going to loose because all he does is bitch about Bush...

If the man gave some actual suggestions as to what he'd DO (aside from get bush out of office), he would have at least a small chance...

But he's not going to do that... He's already fucked up enough with never being on the same side of an issue for more that 5 minutes...

Sorry... At least Bush takes a stance on something and sticks to it...

Even if i didn't like the guy, there's something to be said for standing by what you said...

Well, interest in third parties is a problem when the vast majority of potential voters have only ever known a two-party system. Although, we have had and continue to have independent candidates elected on local and state levels across the country. (The most notable being Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota.)

But to most voters' minds, casting a vote for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away. Couple that with the extreme negative press that Nader has gotten stemming from the 2000 Presidential election (there are still people who blame him for Gore losing), and that the Democratic party has been actively trying to get Nader off the ballot in several states... it doesn't bode well for third party (or more then three) here in the U.S. for some time to come. I'm thinking it would take at least 20 years of work with about 10 times the current involvment to get the idea that it must be two-party out of the minds of the voters.

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.

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.

For months i was so fucking sure Bush was on the way out, then Kerry just seemed to lose the plot. George must be laughing when the cameras aren't shining on him.

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.

The conclusion

no subject

no subject

The whole 'Nam thing...

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: The whole 'Nam thing...

no subject