October 02, 2004

how about we debate over a beer?

I sat down and watched the first Bush/Kerry debate last night, and a surprising thing happened: I realized that I kind of liked George Bush. Not as president, mind you; I'm a firmly committed vote against the plague of verminous hate-and-fear-mongers that infest the W administration like maggots. But as an imperfect, funny, yet passionate product of heartland America, George Bush has a certain personal appeal. I'd like to have a beer with the guy.

John Kerry certainly came off better in the context of the debate. He was more articulate, had better logical arguments, was better versed in issues and better prepared with data. He also showed more physical poise and self-control. But in the context of getting to know the men behind the candidacies, I found myself responding more warmly to W rather than Kerry.


Posted by Gene at October 2, 2004 10:21 AM | TrackBack

You would want to have a beer with a person who infests his cabinet with verminous hate-and-fear mongers? Surely these cabinet officials didn't obtain their positions there by mere chance.

But seriously, your choice of words sounds so dishearteningly partisan to me.

What leads a person to believe that there is "hate mongering" in the W administration, anyway? I'm not even exactly sure what that means. "Fear mongering" I can understand, but honestly, I usually associate that term with Democrats. In the past two weeks, in fact, we've heard some Dems make the claim that another W victory would probably result in the reinstatement of the draft, and increase the chance of a "mushroom cloud" sprouting on American soil.

I agree that Kerry sounded better. In the debate that I saw, though, the similarities were more apparent than the differences. I saw two empty suits who have been nominated because of their willingness to promote the status quo more than anything else. They're not leaders. They've both spent nearly their entire lives being shaped and molded for the task at hand. They even have that same sort of manufactured-looking military record!

That haberdasherer from Missouri-- there was a leader!

One last point and an appeal of sorts: If you agree with me that the real problem is the establishment money, and you don't live in a swing state where your vote might really make a difference relative to which major party you find less odious, you should really seriously consider voting for a third party candidate. That's what I'm doing...

Posted by: Toosh at October 4, 2004 06:00 AM

Well, I really like beer.

Posted by: gene at October 4, 2004 11:05 PM

Ah. I have seriously considered voting for a third party candidate, in every major election where there were plausible alternatives. I even voted for one once, in a fit of misplaced idealism. I used to be a member of the Green party, until I got fed up with their inability to field credible candidates (Peter Camejo got a semi-impressive 5% of the vote for California governor in 2002, but that's the high water mark).

Give me:

1. A third party candidate who inspires my respect, admiration and support
-- or --
2. A line on the ballot where I can vote for "the two-party system is corrupt and bankrupt and its candidates are barely distinguishable empty suits"

Until then, I'm voting "against" the greater evil. But in the meantime I'll spend some time looking at the Nader/Camejo platform to see if I can get more inspired.

Posted by: gene at October 4, 2004 11:36 PM

Might I offer the suggestion that if you can't find a third pary candidate that meets the criteria of your first option, that voting for some other third party candidate would be tantamount to your second option?

Posted by: Toosh at October 6, 2004 10:20 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?