Actually, I'll be voting for Badnarik. I don't necessarily think Badnarik is the best man for the job (after all, there's, what, 150,000,000 people in the country eligible for the job?). I'll be voting for him because I'm meta-gaming the Presidency.
Overall, I think that in many ways, George W. Bush is as honest as politicians get. What he proposes, he does because he honestly believes it to be the right thing. He has done about the best someone could have done with the crappy hand he was dealt. But he'd like to have done more, and that's what scares me. He'd like to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, which I think is an idea bordering on insane. He'd love to give us all more tax cuts, knowing the quickest way into our hearts is through our wallets-- but he doesn't want to reduce spending; indeed, he seems to want to increase it.
But then there's the other side. A lot of people are unimpressed with Bush-- he's got all the problems I listed, plus there are a number of people whose sole issue is the War in Iraq. So, if you're at the top of the Democratic Party, trying to decide who to run, and you're against pretty much all the things Bush is for, you've got to think that you could run a trained monkey and win. What pisses me off is the trained monkey would be a better candidate than John Kerry. Kerry wants to be president because he loves being in the spotlight-- and he will do or say anything to get there. And even worse: he's not even honest about it, and hasn't been for decades. Now, I'm okay with the idea of going to Vietnam, finding out first-hand that war sucks, and then coming back unhappy. But when you're still drawing a paycheck from the United States Navy as a Lieutenant (an officer!), you simply don't go joining peace protests. When you go on record as saying something (and voting for it!), don't turn around and reneg just because you think it'll get you elected. The man has no integrity, and without that, what else can he have?
So what it really boils down to is it doesn't matter who wins-- we either wind up with a guy who's got no concept of finance and too much desire to legislate morality in office, or a guy who we know is slimy. And these are our two choices, out of all the natural-born citizens of the US over 35. How did we get here, where we know one of two people are going to be President for the next four years and either way, we're screwed?
And the answer is: The two party system. I have no delusions that the Libertarian candidate will be elected president. I know, that as far as the outcome of this year's election goes, I am "throwing my vote away." But I will cast my ballot anyhow, because if enough people vote third party, next year, people will take notice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
None of the Above
Date: 2004-10-15 05:13 pm (UTC)Overall, I think that in many ways, George W. Bush is as honest as politicians get. What he proposes, he does because he honestly believes it to be the right thing. He has done about the best someone could have done with the crappy hand he was dealt. But he'd like to have done more, and that's what scares me. He'd like to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, which I think is an idea bordering on insane. He'd love to give us all more tax cuts, knowing the quickest way into our hearts is through our wallets-- but he doesn't want to reduce spending; indeed, he seems to want to increase it.
But then there's the other side. A lot of people are unimpressed with Bush-- he's got all the problems I listed, plus there are a number of people whose sole issue is the War in Iraq. So, if you're at the top of the Democratic Party, trying to decide who to run, and you're against pretty much all the things Bush is for, you've got to think that you could run a trained monkey and win. What pisses me off is the trained monkey would be a better candidate than John Kerry. Kerry wants to be president because he loves being in the spotlight-- and he will do or say anything to get there. And even worse: he's not even honest about it, and hasn't been for decades. Now, I'm okay with the idea of going to Vietnam, finding out first-hand that war sucks, and then coming back unhappy. But when you're still drawing a paycheck from the United States Navy as a Lieutenant (an officer!), you simply don't go joining peace protests. When you go on record as saying something (and voting for it!), don't turn around and reneg just because you think it'll get you elected. The man has no integrity, and without that, what else can he have?
So what it really boils down to is it doesn't matter who wins-- we either wind up with a guy who's got no concept of finance and too much desire to legislate morality in office, or a guy who we know is slimy. And these are our two choices, out of all the natural-born citizens of the US over 35. How did we get here, where we know one of two people are going to be President for the next four years and either way, we're screwed?
And the answer is: The two party system. I have no delusions that the Libertarian candidate will be elected president. I know, that as far as the outcome of this year's election goes, I am "throwing my vote away." But I will cast my ballot anyhow, because if enough people vote third party, next year, people will take notice.