I'm not big on political threads, and, I'm also apparently a masochist, so here go all my thoughts on this upcoming election, after reading which, I open myself to flaming from all who read this.
First of all, what I believe to be truer than anything in modern(last ten years) popular elections, is that the candidates have no real convictions. No convictions, I say! Candidates are nothing more than (some more than others) the needs, desires and insecurities of their constituents, personified, wrapped into a nice package and presented as a counterbalance to the needs, insecurities and desires of an opposing demographic. The biggest difference between A and B, is the people to whom they pander. So long as the groups they represent hold different things to be important, A and B will use those things to make each other look rediculous, short-sighted, silly or just plain stupid.
Now, a quick taking of inventory: I respect Kerry's status as a Veteran. Did he run from vietnam? Did he desert his comrades in arms? I don't know. He did more than I did, and thus, I am no longer qualified to judge his actions. Does Bush's lack of a war record speak poorly of his leadership ability? Not at all. U.S. Grant, a Civil War General, is consistently hailed as one of our worst CICs. Lincoln, by contrast, one of our best.
So, it is not on past lives that we must look to, but to something else. Something more situational.
I really don't believe that G. W. Bush is a religious fundamentalist. In fact, I don't believe he's an anything fundamentalist. Yes, he's done just about everything possible to make himself out to be one, but remember, he has to. Just like J.F. Kerry must look like a socialist. The most honest sentiment exchanged between the two men during their debates was the handshake--because they both know, deep down inside, that it's a game they're playing. Whatever animosity they may have shown, or implied towards one another subsequently was nothing more than the animosity, or ridicule one guy would show another after watching him sink an impossible putt, or, conversely, miss one that seemed unmissable.
So, where does this leave us. Well, for me, as a voter, it's quite clear. George W. Bush, as a seeker of a second term, upon election, will forever shed his need to pander to the right. This leaves him open to make decisions that any normal, rational, thinking human being knows to be practical. Do I think he may loosen his grip on Stem Cell research? I do. Do I think he'll be less of a Jesus Freak(pardon the expression) perhaps. Do I think that he'll be more reasonable on the question of abortion? I can only hope. On the same token, Mr. Kerry, a man with whom I'd play golf, drink beer or exchange friendly banter any day of the week, seeks a first term, and thus, will spend his first four years in office doing everything he can to convince and reconvince his constituency that he will be the man to vote for come 2008. 4 years of pandering by a liberal, to a liberal demographic leaves a lot of us out in the rain. By the virtue of this equation alone, I would go with Bush, because I, like many, am interested in my own well being under a new administration. I also happen to fall quite neatly into the category of people to whom he panders, but that's another story.
What's the point of all this? I think it can be summed up pretty easily with: Less emotion, more math. Find out which part of the equation you belong to and you have your answer.
