« Squeezed Out | Main | Open Discussion: love/hate relationships »

Bushwhacked

I'm risking the wrath of my blog doctor, to whom I made a promise to rest and not blog, but I've been on the couch so damn long I had to get up and do something. So I moved the two feet from the couch to the computer chair. Don't worry, I'll make this short and then it's back to bed. If you notice, I have taken down the "Blogs for Bush" button I had on the sidebar for a few weeks. I'm wavering. He's really pissing me off lately. But what's the alternative? I don't like any of the Dem candidates, and I'm not going to once again waste my vote on a fringe third party candidate. Yea, it's still Bush, but it's not with any kind of passion or total allegiance that he'll get my vote. It comes down to the main issue of who will protect me. It's just a shame that I have to choose everything that comes with the choice of security when I pull that lever.

Comments

Dude, ever since my first year of voting it's been "vote for the lesser of evils", and this year is no exception. Something I'm heartily sick of, by the way.

If you vote for the lesser evil, you're still gonna end up with evil. Only if people vote for the best candidate, regardless of party, is there a shot at getting someone good in office.

Though I'm wavering a bit myself, 'cause I want to vote Libertarian, but I'm falling prey to that same bad thinking and thinking I should vote Democratic.

he really tikked me off during the state of the union and since i was balancing carefully on the white picket fence in the middle already, it sorta pushed me over onto the dem side of the lawn... not that i am thrilled with any of them. but i do have a cousin named kerry, so i suppose i'll go with him :) -- this is similar to my wanting gerald ford in 76 because we had a Ford country squire station wagon - yes - with the fake wood paneling - of course, i was 6 back then.

Yes, that's the point...the "best candidate" is the lesser of evils.

Without going into my particular beliefs on the subject, here's an interesting bit of mostly unreported news.

Voting for your security IS MORE IMPORTANT than voting against that security because of a few extra million spent here or there by that same candidate.

I am going to be very happy to vote for President Bush for a second term. And as soon as I do I'm going to let him know that if he doesn't get something closer to balancing the budget and quit wasting money on the NEA and marriage counseling, I'm going to take Congress away from him.

But still, the country's overall security is #1 in my book. It is still a very easy decision for me, personally.

(Easycure -- it is about a few extra billion, not million, that people are getting ticked off about.)

but:

#1) I have to go with the security issue, because if you're dead, who cares how much money the government gave to the NEA. (I live in NYC, so yes, national security is definitely a life or death matter for me.)

#2) The only way a Democratic President will spend =less= than Bush is proposing is by counting on a Republican Congress to hold him back. Since all the gerrymandering, perhaps the Republicans have a lock on the House for right now, so fiscal deadlock is the way to go. Then I look at #1, and say okay, I'm getting Dems as my senators and reps anyway.

Whew! I'd been afraid that we'd lost you completely to the Dark Side....

BTW...a wise man once told me that a bottles of Wild Turkey will kill just about any virus or other nastiness. Of course, he was an alcoholic, and Wild Turkey was his solution to every problem, but I just thought I'd pass this along. Just in case. Take care....

PUCK THE FACKERS!!! ;0)

If enough Americans don't take the chance to "waste their vote", they'll be stuck with the same-old, same-old over and over again. The two-party system has bred a spendthrift, arrogant two-headed monster and the only way to keep it in check is to show some voter muscle.

That being said, I realize how difficult third-party growth is in the US. I just hope that the Bush administration is noting the vocal dissatisfaction from his base and planning to address it.

I'm all for people wasting their vote, because if they think that's ever going to have an impact their vote is far better wasted than cancelling out mine.

I'm finding it interesting that a lot of people are writing in a Democratic candidate in the Republican primaries so far.

What we need is a Federalist candidate - most Republicans would switch and they would probably pick up most swing voters too.

We need a 3rd party, that isn't a bunch of nut jobs, that speaks to the people and represents them by sticking to their beliefs - that would be a real Fedralist candidate. Lacking that, the closest you can get is Republican and in the last 3 years, the Republicans are all turning into a bunch of RINO's, sliding over to the Democrats side of the table, especially in the feild of spending. How about showing a little restraint there in Washington?

I'll vote - but thats just so I can bitch later. If you don't vote, you give up your right to have anything to say about how the country is run - period.

It would never get voted in but you could fix the entire budget process, over runs and all, in short order.

If the country goes over budget, all senators and congrespersons lose their pay, and their pension. When you tie their pay to how they spend our money, they would make damn well sure that there was a surplus every year so that they wouldn't go home broke.

I agree with Jane. Voting for the person you think would be the best President is never "wasting" a vote. Voting for one of the two guys who is going to win anyway, just because there's a structural bias towards their two groups, even if they aren't your top choices, is wasting your vote.

I always vote for the lesser of two evils. I've never been truly inspired by a candidate. However, I didn't realize how "lesser" I was voting. Bush is a Democrat in sheeps clothing. I think Reagan said about spending: "but a drunken sailor only spends his own money!" Bush is a drunken sailor with his hand in my pocket too and he is obsessing on ridiculous issues both on the left and right trying to suck up. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, he would easily have been my worst vote ever considering what he did to the former suplus,now deficit.

I'm not as conservative as President Bush. I disagree with a lot of his policies. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat.

But I'm from New York. I remember the days after Sept. 11. Everybody around here was paralyzed with grief, or indecision, denial or fear. We were stunned. People would burst into tears, randomly.

A few days later, President Bush came to Ground Zero. He stood on a crumpled fire truck, yelled through a megaphone, and gave us our fight back. He reminded us we were Americans, and New Yorkers.

A few weeks later, while Osama bin Laden was cowering in a cave at the ends of the earth, Bush came back to New York. In front of 57,000 people, he stood on a mound at Yankee Stadium and threw a perfect strike. It didn't make everything magically better, but what better way to show the world Americans don't cower, like those scumbags who brought the towers down?

None of that was done for political gain. He didn't act based on what focus groups said.

He declared open season on genocidal maniacs. He gave us our fight back.

Everything else is small potatoes.

ED: It's moot of course, but I suspect that at least one or two of the current Democratic candidates would've done the same thing had they been in office.

I can't justify voting for Bush solely on the basis that he happened to be in office when we were attacked, and he did some things that were right as a result. When you're talking about the President of the United States, being resolute in the face of a crisis isn't a "bonus" or a "nice to have", it's a baseline expectation.

The standards for that office are necessarily higher than any other job in the country. It's a higher standard than even that for our clergy, because in the divine world, the priests and rabbis and mullahs of the world are the fallable human representatives of God. In the secular world, the President of the United States is God.

I guess the point is, some people have greatness thrust upon them, and some of those people can only turn that into a "good" instead of a "great." That's not anything to be ashamed of, but it doesn't exactly recommend that person to be the leader of the free world for the next four years.

So yes, I do give Bush due credit for doing the right thing up to and including Afghanistan, but I think there are people out there who could've done it better.

Ahh, most of you guys won't care about that though, because you're not about to vote for a Democrat, and Bush is the only viable Republican, so it probably won't make any difference. It's something to think about though, even (and especially) if you don't agree.

I'm a Democrat and I'll be voting Democratic in this election, but I sincerely wish I had the chance to vote Republican.

I would have voted for John McCain over Al Gore - or any of the current Democratic field - in a heartbeat. Bush is inferior to McCain in just about every way, including national defense and personal character. The only thing he had going for him, the thing that got him nominated in the first place, was that he got in bed with the religious right.

I don't trust Bush on a wide variety of issues such as civil rights (including but not limited to a woman's right to choose), protecting the environment, restraining the debt, or even homeland security. I certainly don't trust him to have any concern for the interests of folks in the middle and lower socio-economic classes.

Bush is a polarizing figure - that's why Howard Dean got off to such a big start and it's also why most of the Democratic field is leaning way to the left during the primary race.

I would ask Michele and anyone else out there who normally votes Republican but is not sympathetic to the religious right to think about the implications of a vote for Bush. Do you really want abortion to be illegal? Do you really want Ashcroft to keep tacking on new riders to the Patriot Act? Do you really want homosexual men and women to have fewer rights than the rest of us? Do you really want teachers leading kids in prescribed prayers in our public schools?

George Bush stands for all those things. While he has done some good things in the area of national defense, he's also made numerous mistakes there. It's a dangerous and false dichotomy to think "Republican=safety, Democrat= danger". Dean is the only major Democratic candidate who was philosophically opposed to the war in Iraq, and he now has virtually no chance at the nomination.

Do you really want abortion to be illegal? Do you honestly expect us to believe any President will ever be able to achieve this without massive public support?

Do you really want Ashcroft to keep tacking on new riders to the Patriot Act? He can tack 'em on all he wants, but nothing becomes law without congressional approval. Talk to your congressman if you have a problem.

Do you really want homosexual men and women to have fewer rights than the rest of us? They have just as much right to marry as you or I -- or are they the only ones prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex? </snark>

Do you really want teachers leading kids in prescribed prayers in our public schools? "Prescribed" prayers? Miker, you're in la-la land with that one.

Matt:

Terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993. Clinton issued a press release from the White House. And answered a question or two about it a few days later during a press conference.

The only time Clinton came to New York was to accept checks from Denise Rich.

Clinton treated terrorism like street crime. Kerry wants to do the same. Clark wants to do the same. Who knows what Dean wants to do?

Bush treats it like war.

So - no - not every president would have acted the same way.

I know a really long pun that ends the dresser of two weevils.

So McGeehee, we're supposed to take it on faith that Bush is cynically using the religious right, and none of their holy grails that he says he supports will ever be realized?

What do you think "prayer in schools" means? It damn sure doesn't mean that each kid gets to pray on their own, however they like, because they can do that right now.

In bed with the religious right? Many"religious right" groups are lamenting how liberal HW is, so I'm not exactly following that argument.

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s, is handing out AnybodyButBush stickers…

Fill out the simple AnybodyButBush pledge on www.ShowGeorgeTheDoor.org/
and I will send you an AnybodyButBush sticker, like the one above.

Let’s join together and show George the door in ’04.

Yours for Sanity in the White House,

Ben Cohen
President, TrueMajorityACTION.org

Please forward this to EveryBodyButBush.

+ I am writing this email on my own and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's, which is not associated with the TrueMajorityACTION campaign.

Anyone who thinks the US will be safer after the Iraq invasion is in la la land. Bush just made this world a more dangerous place, and we need to get him and his crooked cronies out of office ASAP.