Thursday, October 14, 2004

It's one thing to believe Kerry is the right choice for President, but it's a whole 'nother ballgame to see him as the lesser of two evils and vote for him anyway.

Back in 2000, I recognized Bush for the hand puppet that he was/is and was adamantly against the idea that Gore was the lesser of two evils, villifying anyone that supported Nader instead or simply didn't bother to vote when they knew they were in a swing state. Gore ran a terrible campaign, much worse than Kerry's, underestimating both Bush and his level of support (and, in retrospect, his electoral vs. popular vote strategy) and, controversies aside, when all was said and done, he lost. Even worse, he quit the fight before it was done.

For all the outrage Fahrenheit 9/11 engendered, the most galling moment for me was watching Gore silence members of the House attempting to register a protest over the certification of the election results on the basis of disenfranchised voters in their districts because they lacked a co-signature from a Senator. ANY SENATOR!

And now, four years later, with our world a very different place post-9/11 and Bush & Cos. wrongheaded plans fully in action, a half-assed alternative like Kerry - who simply disagrees with many of Bush's methods, but not his fundamental objectives - isn't the answer because he will be set up to fail. The next four years are going to suck, no matter who is President. If Kerry pulls off the victory in the bottom of the ninth, it'll be all for naught as the job ahead is daunting for the people who screwed it up, even moreso for someone looking only to tweak it here and there.

It's like deciding to cut back to a pack a day once you've discovered you have lung cancer. It's too late!

A Kerry victory guarantees a relative status quo with a more palatable veneer. The Republicans are expected to maintain their hold on both the House and Senate this election - where are the rallying cries of support for change at the state and local levels? - and will make it impossible for Kerry to accomplish anything of real importance. In 2008, he will then get his hat handed to him by McCain or Giuliani.

So yes, even though my original statement of "Democrats deserve another four years of Bush." was specifically in reference to "Democrats" and meant as a snarky I told you so for nominating Kerry, after some frustrated thinking over lunch, I've come to the conclusion that AMERICA needs another four years of Bush.

While Kerry is definitely better than Bush, that's a no-brainer (no pun intended!), he's not better enough to risk status quo. The same way an addict needs to truly hit rockbottom to kick their habit, this country needs a swift kick in the head to turn off the TV and jar it back to its senses.

Bush/Cheney is the team to deliver that kick and complaining about how much it's going to hurt is at least four years too late. Twelve years, if you believe Ross Perot had tapped into something in '92 that was squandered during the Clinton years.

In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.
--J. William Fulbright

A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic.
--Aldous Huxley
NOTE: This started as a response to Dyanna's post in response to my previous entry, but it started getting longer than I intended so I posted it here instead.


Guy LeCharles Gonzalez said...

I've come to the conclusion that AMERICA needs another four years of Bush.And by America I mean THEM. And US. And YOU. And ME.

Dyanna said...

I hear what you're saying... BUT I believe most Americans have been hurt enough these past 4 years and dont need MORE shit piled up to realized just HOW foolish it was to ever vote for Bush. Why have MORE regrets?

I personally believe Kerry's worth the risk.

Who are you voting for, anyway??

Anonymous said...

"...after some frustrated thinking over lunch, I've come to the conclusion that AMERICA needs another four years of Bush."

While I understand your fustration, I can't understand why under any circumstances you would say that America "needs" another four yrs of Bush. Guy, think about it this way. What has happened in these four years? The middle class is now low income yet the rich has gotten (much) richer. Some of people who who were poor prior to Bush are now on the streets with their families not knowing whats going to happen next. Will they even survive? Programs to help these people are being cut left and right. Peoples children are being killed because we have a president who can't admit he's wrong and on top of that has absolutely no plan, strategy or otherwise to get us out of this hell. I can quote you statistics all day on rising health costs and education costs but it would be pointless because you already know this. I have two points here. The first being - We know what (damage) Bush can do. He can't even admit he's wrong about this war. What would make anyone think that he would do anything any differently with four more yrs? Or was your point stated because you think America needs "more" proof that Bush is incompetant? As an American, I can see the state of the country and so can many other people. I voted as did many others. Our votes were pretty much nullified with the FL fiasco and heaven only knows what other "technics" were used to get him in the whitehouse. No, Gore most definatly did not run the best or even a good campaign but why should we as a country be continually punished for what he did or didn't do four yrs ago? We shouldn't. In my opinion, we've been punished ENOUGH! Point two. You may not like John Kerry for whatever reason but at this point he is in fact (as much as you may hate it) the only other alternative as far as nominees go. Would I prefer someone else? Yes, but I don't have that choice right now. As much as I hate to admit it, voting Kerry will be taking a chance with the unknown. But to me, its better than voting for Bush knowing that I and millions of others will suffer financially, educationally and for those who are losing family members, mentally, physcially and forever trying to heal a broken heart. Guy, I do hope you rethink your previous statement. I really took the part you wrote about fustration to heart because I really can't see you as a logical person actually meaning that.


me said...

I disagree.

I don't see Kerry as that similar to Bush. Not the ideal candidate but it would make a huge difference, particularly because the Republicans will control the Senate and the house for at least the next couple of years. With a Democratic president they will be forced to moderate a wide range of legislation so that either the President would sign it or it could get enough Dem support in the house to override a veto. The supreme court is a hugh prize up for grabs at the moment as well. Despite his assertion last night that he wouldn't have a 'test' on Roe v Wade for a supreme court judge you can be sure that anyone Bush puts forward won't be big on civil rights or choice. Right now the court is split 5/4 on a whole lot of issues, much as the country seems to be split fairly evenly.

My one hope is that the momentum of groups like Move On and ACT won't die in November. Howard Dean is doing some good work at the grassroots level trying to build an alternative to the Christian / Conservative movement that has been working for years. But it will take time and effort from all of us for that to work.

philwest said...

Two things:

The Senate could slide to the Dems. Optimistic projects say 49 Dems plus Jeffords, plus Edwards as a tiebreaking vote if the Johns win. The House is still going to be GOP for a while, though.

If Kerry doesn't get the job done in the first term, we're probably going to have Guiliani as President in '08. So there's very little room for error.

On the other hand, if Bush wins, I think we get a much stronger slate in '08. Obama's probably going to be seen as too young still, but he's the most dynamic leader we have right now. And the thought of a Hillary candidacy, even though she's probably more centrist than we'd want, is fascinating. Maybe '08's the year we get someone other than a white man running.