Brent posed the question, "What about voting your conscience." Then there followed a hypocritical/inconsistant thread of argument.
That certainly is my conundrum in this election. I cannot vote my conscience for neither represents it. To vote for one is hypocritical and the other inconsistant. I could vote for a third party candidate, but then we'd have to start a discussion on tilting at windmills in American politics.
All I know at this point is I'm not voting for Barabara Boxer.
I firmly hold a few beliefs/assumptions about American politics:
1.)Republicrats are insincere, opportunistic, political players, who will do/say anything to get elected. Once elected, their primary goal is to secure the future of the system and their future benefit from it. This means payola to those who played along with their pandering.
2.)The vast majority of Americans view their political leaders with what can at best be described as skepticism. Many distrust and outright despise their leaders for the things mentioned in number one, above.
3.)The Two Party System is just that:
2 PARTIES Neither side wants to eliminate the other, neither side is serious about winning once and for all, or shifting the majority view towards what is sensible. First and foremost, both sides need eachother in order to put on the show every two years, and insure that each reaps the benefits of political office.
You can't have a cage match, with smack-talking wrestlers unless there are two of them. You have to have Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. {another wrestler...I don't know who's hot currently} In order for the phoney show to go on, you must have two actors play the part. Afterwards, they go out and have a beer together and talk about investments and such.
This is exactly what the politicians doAm I cynical? Those who actually believe one of these guys running for office will surely say so. Certainly the other guy fits my description, but not our guy! Nevertheless, I defy anyone to name one thing that George Bush has done to further the "conservative" agenda. The 600.00 refund check is nothing. I didn't even qualify for it....too high of an income. I guess my kids don't count.
Conservatives are supposed to cut the size of government, and its intrusive regulations into our lives. They are supposedly the opposite of "tax and spend." Yet, Bush and the republican congress have spent more than any other congress, and have increased spending more than any other. The republican house and senate, along with the republican president haven't come close to balancing the national checkbook. they talk about reducing the size of government, but they have increased it dramatically, going so far as to create huge new departments and agencies. Conservatives don't do this, do they?
As far as intrusion, Bush and the republican congress drafted the Patriot Act. So far, it has been used for the "right" reasons...but soon, it will be used in far more nefarious ways. If Kerry gets elected, look forward to him using the Patriot Act to harrass and punish his political enemies, and to punish the enemies of his supporters.
President Bush held his hand on the Bible and swore before God to uphold the constitution. Prior to that, he stated that campaign finance reform---McCain-Finegold----was unconstitutional. Then, after swearing to uphold the constituion, he signed what he knew was an unconstitutional bill into law!?
I could go on and on.
I need not mention the stunning barrage of lies and treason being perpetrated by Kerry. He is worse than Bush, except in one area:
Kerry has the courage to mount a viscious campaign of slander to bring the other guy down, while Bush hasn't the courage to oppose/expose him and defend himself. I can only speculate as to why this is the case, and my speculation leads me to conclude that Bush hasn't the moral fiber or statesmanship to risk political capital by telling the truth: His opponent is a treasonous liar.
A man who won't say the hard thing, in order to avoid losing a tight political race is not my idea of a strong leader.
I could go on and on and on. In doing so, the only conclusion that makes any sense is that american politics are a show, similiar to the WWF, in which the candidates are casted as the leading rolls, but the script writers and producers are behind the scenes calling the shots.
That's why I'm a third party guy. I love republican rhetoric...I just never see it practised.
Jem, consider voting for Judge Jim Gray for Senate. I have met him, and spoken with him at length...he's a great guy. Was a republican until 2 years ago.
When I heard him speak, he fielded questions from all angles, and actually answered them without a script. He could string more than two sentences together in a coherent manner, and he was consistent and logical in his answers.
Why is it that he can answer coherently, off the cuff, while Bush and Kerry need to have the questions submitted before hand, so their staff can craft "answers" that the candidates can regurgitate later? How phoney can you get? It's disgusting, and both sides are guilty of it.
The media is even worse. In order to be successfull in media, you must kiss @$$ and report the way your editor/producer wants. Favors, back-room deals, exclusives, leaks....all are part of a complicated dance of deception, smearing, salesmanship, spin and damage control.
I think americans would flock to a leader who had no staff, no handlers, and who stuck to a few simple principles. That is exactly who our founding fathers were, and they were able to ignite a revolution. Where is Patrick Henry when we need him?
Sadly, the two party system is carefully designed to avoid exactly this. The last thing either party needs is a Patrick Henry, or a Thomas Jefferson, someone who can talk straight and make sense, it will ruin everything they have worked for.
I'll make all of you a wager:
If Bush wins, in four years nothing will have changed, and Roe v Wade will still be in place. He won't appoint constructionist judges to the court, neither will he reduce or eliminate a single government program.
If Kerry wins, in four years nothing will have changed, and Roe v Wade will still be in place. He won't appoint constructionist judges to the court, neither will he reduce or eliminate a single government program.
If what I say turns out to be true, who is wasting their vote?
Brent
Poll
