Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Election 2004: Choices? |
| 10.23.04 (10:08 pm) [edit] |
|
Arguably the most important aspect of a democratic society is the assurance that its citizens are provided with [b]choices[/b] regarding how their government is run. It is assumed that we are given these choices in the form of a number of candidates competing for each particular office in a given election year. This year, we are presented with choices for President- the highest office in our nation. Or are we? I rarely cut-and-paste articles, but this is a well-written presentation of the incompetency of both men with the greatest potentiality of becoming our next President. I will post a few choice segments, and if you would like to read the rest for yourself, the link is at the bottom. [line] "President Bush has grown government more than any administration in four decades, even when you subtract for defense and homeland security spending. He and the Republican Congress have given us massive, pork-laden energy, farm subsidy, highway, and corporate tax bills. Despite his reputed stern resolve, President Bush shown no political backbone on domestic issues, save for some modest tax cuts. He gave ground on free trade, capitulated on campaign finance reform, expanded the regulatory state and passed the largest new federal entitlement since the Great Society." "The claim that President Bush made us safer in the War on Terror is also misguided. He diverted precious military intelligence, manpower, and resources away from apprehending the people who perpetrated Sept. 11 (Al Qaeda) and those who harbored them (the Taliban) to wage war with Iraq, a country that posed little if any immediate threat to our national security. Even conceding that the war made sense given the intelligence available at the time (it didn't), it's now clear that the Bush administration was woefully unprepared for post-war security. We're now enveloped in an expensive, dangerous, stagnant occupation. Our presence in Iraq is breeding new anti-American terrorists, in Iraq and across the Muslim world. The Brookings Institution estimates that the overwhelming majority of insurgent attacks in Iraq against U.S. forces are coming from newly minted, native Iraqi terrorists, not from existing Islamic extremists from other countries. Terrorist attacks across the globe have gone up, not down, since September 11." "John Kerry wouldn't be any better. Kerry's plan for Iraq — like his plans for most domestic issues — is to throw more money and resources at the problem. It's naïve to think Kerry would pull us out of Iraq. What better way to show the good government can do than to build an entire society from scratch?" "Upon getting his party's nomination, Sen. Kerry looked at an administration that grew government in nearly all areas at a rate unseen in nearly a half-century and decided to run to the left of it. He insists that the looming Social Security and Medicare crises are exaggerated, meaning that eight years of a Kerry administration would almost certainly mean younger workers can look forward to a massive hike in payroll taxes. Kerry also wants to further socialize health care. He's a little better on medicinal marijuana, but is otherwise every bit the drug warrior President Bush is." "So what to do? I'm not sure. If I were to make an endorsement, I'd recommend leaving the top line of your ballot blank. What I'd like to issue is a wake-up call. It's been awe-inspiring to watch otherwise smart people sing the praises of a guy they really don't like that much for no other reason than that they dislike the other guy more. But while Americans passionately, sometimes angrily, divide themselves into "red" and "blue" — bitterly aligning themselves behind two candidates who really aren't all that different from each other — the two major parties will continue to use campaign finance reform, the presidential debates, regulation of the airwaves, national conventions, and taxpayer funding to secure their stranglehold duopoly on American politics. Which means that instead of an exercise in freedom, Election Day is fast becoming an exercise in choosing which of two largely identical groups of politicians gets to control our lives for the next four years.' [i]Radley Balko maintains a Weblog at: http://www.TheAgitator.com.[/i] Taken from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,136114,00.html [line] While I agree with many of the assertions in this article, I would like to offer an alternate set of advice. It is rather clear that America's political process has become more and more a corporate-run enterprise, with the Democratic and Republican Parties at the helm. This is evident in the media coverage both candidates from these parties ultimately receive. There are choices in this election, and yes, the choice between George W. Bush and John Kerry is among them. However, that is not where it ends. Third party candidates need now more than ever the support of voters in order to take back America's democratic heritage. Sure, it is not entirely likley that a candidate such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party's[/url] [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url] will win the presidency this year, but that does not make a vote cast for him wasted. I believe the stakes of this year's election are high. But not because we are at war, not because we have a weak economy and have suffered a net loss of jobs over the past four years, but because the future of America is at stake. There will be little difference between a second Bush Administration and a John Kerry presidency, in my opinion. What is most important is to consider the implications continually casting a vote for the "lesser of two evils" will have on our country. Voting for someone because you despise his opponent is not productive in changing the system. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik on November 2nd because I am hopeful that we can truly and effectively alter the current cycle of American politics. The only wasted vote this year is the vote for a candidate you don't truly support. |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 10.23.04 (7:18 pm)
I agree. The only real wasted vote is a vote for George W. Kerry. Or your goldfish, I suppose. But even that has value as a protest vote.
posted by: l.a.veggie (reply)
post date: 10.23.04 (8:02 pm)
This article is a sad commentary on the state of American democracy. It is basically an endorsement of the Iraqis who are revolting against the U.S. occupation. What this article fails to do is to point out that there are no perfect candidates in any election. We are so engulfed with the smearing by the candidates that we fail to realize that Kerry is a pretty darn good choice. The writer never mentions who is a better choice. I think that is irresponsible of him. Kerry is not perfect, and I don't agree with some of his positions, but he is infinitely better than George Bush.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 10.23.04 (10:09 pm)
Reply to: l.a.veggie
"It is basically an endorsement of the Iraqis who are revolting against the U.S. occupation."
Huh? Are you asserting that any criticism of our candidates equates to anti-Americanism? Just because some of us may argue that the war in Iraq was unjustified and that the U.S. is wrong to occupy Iraq, it does not equal supporting Iraqi insurgents who attack our soldiers.
"...Kerry is a pretty darn good choice."
I, and the writer of this article, disagree. Personally, I view Kerry to be slightly less evil than Bush... but that cannot be misconstrued to mean he is a good choice. The article points out reasons Bush is a poor choice and also why Kerry is a bad choice. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is actually possible to see both candidates as unworthy of the position of President.
" The writer never mentions who is a better choice. I think that is irresponsible of him."
Well, I agree that I would have liked the article better had he promoted another candidate over Bush and Kerry, which is why I made sure to mention my pick of Michael Badnarik. However, I think the intent of the article was to serve as a much needed condemnation of our current political system, meaning he had no responsibility to stump for another candidate.
"Kerry is not perfect, and I don't agree with some of his positions, but he is infinitely better than George Bush."
As I said, I would agree that Kerry is better than Bush (or at least, less evil), but you're missing the point. You admit you don't agree with Kerry on some issues, yet you'll vote for him anyway because you choose to cast your vote against Bush, rather than in favor of someone who truly represents your views. The point I am trying to make is that by voting for the "lesser of two evils," or just voting against a candidate, it only serves to perpetuate the system. The best way to make a real difference for America's future is to vote for a third party candidate and support real change.
posted by: l.a.veggie (reply)
post date: 10.24.04 (2:48 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
No Anti-Americanism here. : ) What I was trying to point out, is that the because of the apparent perception of American democracy, the Iraqis actually have a reason to resist American occupation. The writer only focused on the negative and not the positive. It's good to be critical, but in my opinion, I think it is more effective to be pragmatic, not just critical.
We can agree to disagree here. I don't think Kerry is a perfect choice, but he is not a bad choice and I believe he is the most qualified. I can't think of one candidate who totally encompasses my ideologies and is exerienced enough in the political arena to fill the most high pressured position in the world. I also don't believe in voting for somebody just because he or she share the exact political beliefs as me, otherwise I would vote for my barber. Even if Michael Badnarik shared more of my ideologies, I don't feel he has enough experience. I think of it this way, I would rather get on a plane with a pilot who has logged lots of flight hours than with a pilot who is flying solo for the first time. Not to mention, I am more democrat than libertarian, ideologically speaking.
I don't think it is fair to condemn our political system. It is responsible to be critical and point out what can be better, but a condemnation, which is my perception of the article, is flat out irresponsible. Although it is not perfect, I strongly believe we have the best system in the world and we have the ability to make it better by promoting those ideas that will improve it, not just being critical. Leaving the top line of your ballot blank is a bad idea. Doing so would be a strong indication that democracy is failing and motivation for those who oppose it to continue rejecting it.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 10.26.04 (8:50 am)
nice assesment. i may vote for badnarik as a protest vote myself. i'm a neo-libertarian (just made that up) and was formerly the communications director for the louisville, kentucky libertarian party. i debated the local perot guy once on tv (lol).
i always enjoy reading your blog and when i read your posts i know i am "sharpening the saw" of reason against another objective seeker of truth.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 10.27.04 (8:48 am)
I was also tempted to post something in its entirety, but I decided to link to it instead. The American Conservative magazine has more than a few misgivings about Bush, and what they said in their upcoming issue surprised even me. There's a link to it in my latest post, but they actually suggested voting for Kerry.
There is value in getting Bush out of office. Then they can get back to liberal bashing.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 10.30.04 (7:33 pm)
I'm hoping that one of the lessons learned from this year's election will be the need to reform (do away with) the electoral college system. Until such time as the EC is dealt with, all of our discussions regarding candidates and choices, no matter how interesting and articulate, are little more than academic.
posted by: Honoratus (reply)
post date: 05.21.07 (10:40 am)
Good job! Your site is great!
posted by: Boleslava (reply)
post date: 07.15.07 (5:22 pm)
Hello world
;)
