After all, canâ€™t elect a man just because heâ€™s not George Bush, can we?
Voting for someone because they're not George Bush is about the worst reason I can think of to vote for anyone. Hitler's not George Bush, Pol Pot's not George Bush, Hussein's not George Bush. But if your only standard is "not George Bush" than these people are acceptable. I've said it before. Why the hell should we have to vote for someone because the only qualification they have is that they're not the other guy?
They pro-Bush camp is joined by Ralph Nader and his supporters in this, hoping to drain off just enough of the votes from Kerry to Nader to put Bush back into the White House, while giving Nader the ego boost he seems to desperately need.
And this, right here, is why... because most Americans think we live in a two-part country. Which it has been, pretty much without exception, since the 3rd Presidential election. But as long as third party candidates are seen as "taking votes away" from The Parties, there's no chance for any real change. People who vote for Nader aren't voting for him to help Bush get into office. They're voting for Nader because they believe that Kerry is as unfit for the presidency as Bush. If they want Kerry to be president, they'll vote for Kerry. These aren't votes that Kerry is losing. He can't lose them, because he never had them in the first place.
What the parties involved forget is that for many elections, many of us vote for the best of a lot we donâ€™t care for, making determinations that weâ€™d rather have someone who is inactively good, than actively bad.
I am voting for Kerry and Edwards because, first of all, they are not Bush and Cheney. Even if Kerry spent the next four years, comatose at his desk and didnâ€™t do a damn thing, he would be a better President than George W. Bush in the White House for four more years without the constraints of worrying about a future re-election
Possibly, if Kerry didn't do anything at all in the White House, he wouln't be as bad as Bush. But the thing is, he will do things in the White House. But you're chosing to vote not on what he may do, but on what someone else has done. You're not voting for Kerry, you're voting against Bush. But you're doing it in the least informed, least intellegent way imaginable. Nader isn't Bush, the National Socialist Party candidate isn't Bush, the Natural Law Party candidate isn't Bush... why aren't you voting for them? By voting someone, not because they deserve to be president, or even are the best choice on the ticket, but merely because they have the best chance of beating the guy you don't like, you are voting from fear, from ignorance, from intimidation. You're letting the Democratic Party tell you that what you actually believe is not important. That the person you choose to represent you doesn't have to believe anything that you believe, so long as he disagrees with Bush on a few issues that make headlines. You are giving up the power in the Constitution that you so desperately want to protect.
(Oh, and for those critical of Edwards and Kerry for not being present for this vote, be aware that the members of Congress almost always know how a vote will go before it happens. A favorite election year gambit is to use this knowledge ahead of time to make those who are running for office seem negligent when they arenâ€™t available for a vote. Members of a party will actually change their vote on a measure to make the vote seem much closer than it would really be, just to generate bad publicity for a candidate. Yeah, I know: devious. And both parties are guilty of it. So take the cries of, â€œBut they didnâ€™t voteâ€ with a grain of salty sand.)
Why does it matter how close the vote was, or who cheated? The issue, to me, isn't "Did Kerry's vote affect the outcome?" it's "Was Kerry doing the job that he was elected to do?" The people of his state chose to be represented in the Senate by Kerry. But he's off campaigning for President. This is the same as using the company time to write your resume, company stamps and envelopes to mail it and the company phone to interview with other companies. It's stealing. But on a much larger level. Why should we trust Kerry to have the job of President when he doesn't seem to be doing the job he has now of Senator?
No, I won't be voting for Bush come November. As I've said before I don't believe he's fit for the job. But as things stand now, I won't be voting for Kerry either. I haven't decided who I will vote for, but it will be for the person I believe is the best person for the job given the people I can choose from.