I’ve decided to spare everyone the trouble of reading daily installments of my internal debate over the election. Instead, I’m storing all my thoughts in a nice file that I’ll drop like a bomb on this blog on Monday. Every day presents new reasons why I shouldn’t vote for one presidential candidate or the other, which makes the decision all the more, um … entertaining. Yeah, that’s a word, all right.
For what it’s worth, I think I know who I’m voting for. My internal polling is running about 51-48 (with 1 percent suggesting I just blow off the whole thing). That’s enough for me to think I’m likely to vote the way I’m feeling now — but there’s always the chance of some last-moment revelation/gaffe that could change that, or some reasoned argument I stumble across altering my decision. I don’t think so, but …
Speaking of which, is it my imagination, or have the “Bush is a dolt / fiend / criminal / lunatic / idjit / puppet / danger” folks been in a full court press over the last week or two? Maybe it’s been because I’ve been avoiding explicitly political sites, for the most part, but a lot of the non-explicitly-political sites have been doing a lot more Bush-bashing. That’s certainly their prerogative, but it still feels a bit odd (especially given the polls) — and, in marked contrast, assuming that is their political bent, I’ve seen very little Kerry-supporting on those same sites. Which I can also understand, but it does lend itself to the idea that Daffy Duck or Boris Badinov could run for president and folks would support him over Bush …
Anyway, more Monday.
Or you could do it after the Polls close Tuesday night, while we watch the returns. It’ll give us all something to look forward to…a peak inside Dave’s internal debate.
Also, since the two guys I was supporting lost in the primaries in the may time period, and since Kerry is too the right of you, I’ve been most happy with my ABB position.
On the plus side Daffy speaks better then Bush. ;->
Also, it would be very entertaining to see Daffy get all riled up during the SotU speech about whither it was Duck season or Rabbit season. ;-0
I’ll probably do it Monday. I’d hate for someone to say, “Hmmmm, never thought of that, now I wish I’d voted for X,” whether or not X is whom I’m voting for (or against). That’s probably far too egotistical of me to consider, though.
Confused…
Since all but one of the political sites that you link to are either extremely right-wing or slightly right-wing biased (spinsanity), which political sites have you been reading?
It’s the non-political sites — mostly ones under “Others” or “Potpourri” — where it’s been noticeable.
I think it’s ironic that the easiest way to tell if I’m left- or right-wing is making note of which site gives me hives faster.
And, to your point on the “lots of anti-Bush, not lots of pro-Kerry” bit, I’ll simply repeat my previous statement: Kerry could be the first guy to win the Presidency in which the *overwhelming* majority of voters were not actually voting for him — just voting against Bush.
Then again, voting against Bush (specifically, against the cadre that surrounds him) is enough for me.
To my previous post, an addendum: I don’t think the candidates for President can be considered and compared in vacuum: ignoring the VP for a moment, consider who *else* stays in their current position, and how that works for you.
While, sure, I really don’t like Bush a’tall (actually, I find him embarassing as a representative of the country), it’s really when I think of the people that he has in positions of power *around* him that I get the heebie-jeebies and my voter-doubt fades away.
Hmmm…
With the exception of Marn, Les, Julia and Scott I would have to say that it has been the opposite over the past several months in the Potpourri and others section. Mostly of the Kerry-is-an-evil-tratorus-commie-pinko-babyeating-bastard variety.
Doyce, I did like your comment, re Bush, “Now if only there were a competitor who didn’t make my skin crawl.” You tend to be studiously apolitical, and generally nonpartisan and/or balanced when you do make a poliical comment (re the Michael Moore post).
As to the “which gives you hives fastest,” bit, I’m finding CNN’s election coverage around noontime (when I’m out lunching) gives me indigestion whichever candidate is squawking his current day’s sound bite. It’s difficult to try to look at positions beyond the “let’s smear the other fella” rhetoric from both parties, especially at this point in the campaign (and. one might argue, wrong to do so — what a person’s willing to do and say when they’re desperate to win has to provide a certain measure of insight into that person).
The “who do they keep around them” bit (in which, honestly, I find it difficult to separate out the VP from the rest of the cabinet) doesn’t help that much. Some members of Bush’s cabinet give me hives, others I find bothersome, others I don’t find particularly offensive. Kerry remains an unknown quantity, except in his VP choice and to hypothesize a certain recycling of Clinton-era folks. Depending on what you think of our foreign, defense, and law enforcement policies at the time, that may or may not be a good thing.
I do agree that if Kerry wins, it will be on the ABB vote — even predominently. That may cripple him (once his raison d’etre is accomplished), or it may give him a clean slate by which to forge foreward constructively. Since he’ll have, at least, an Opposition House of Reps, and (too close to call) a narrow +/- in the Senate, it’s not likely that, legislatively, he can do too much “damage” (if that’s what concerns you).
I’m actually more interested in what comes up the next candidate cycle. Will Kerry be a one-termer (seems more likely than most other recent presidents), and, if so, who will the Dems put in (I favor Hillary, myself). More importantly, who the hell would the GOP put in? There’s a huge vacuum there, especially since anyone who puts his or her head up too soon will get it politically shot off (regardless of whether Bush wins or not).
But I get ahead of myself …
On the GOP side: Jeb, Perry, McCain, Nickles, Pataki, Engler and Owens are the front runners for ’08, unless the GOP is able get an amendment in to allow Schawrtzennager (sp?) to run.
On the Dem side: Hillary would be great for the base, but the WRCM would be all over her.
Too much baggage.
Front runners right now would be Vilsack, Richardson, Locke, Bayh, Fiengold, Schumer, and Levin. And hopefully this year saw the end of JoeMentum.
Also…
A bit of entertainment from lunch.
To day we had a group pot luck thing, and one of the conversations that came up was that because of the lunar eclipse last night and the election next Tuesday, that these are somehow all signs of the apocalypse. And me without my winger-to-reality translation guide.
Doubt we’ll see an amendment to let Ahnold get in (him being the “target” of it would probably be enough to shoot it down in some quarters).
Don’t see Jeb as viable, esp. if his brother tanks (“Just what we want, another one-term Bush”). McCain is getting a bit long in the tooth, unfortunately. Pataki’s a possibility. Owens, too, I suppose>
Hillary would indeed be a lightning rod for the Clinton-bashers — but, then, anyone running for the Dems is likely to be be as well, so they might as well suck it up. Question is whether she’s been (or would be) so demonized already that she’d win among the Dem actives, but be unable to garner a major portion of the more quiet mainstream.
We’ll see.
You know, you’re right. I’ve been wearing an ABB button since February, and I just haven’t articulated before now that there are actually reasons to vote FOR Kerry and not just because he’s the Democratic nominee. It’s just a little too easy to get all tangled up in all the entertain
Most of them are fairly wonkish reasons – let’s face it, investigations of Iran-Contra connections to cocaine smugglers and international banking are important things, but they’re not “sexy.”
I think he’s a solid guy who would do a solid job and not embarass us on the world stage. I think he’s never going to be a har-de-har guy, but that’s okay. We’re electing the guy who’s never more than a few feet from the Football, after all.
And what with all the Apocalyptic signs of late… I’d rather have the guy whose political chums AREN’T drooling over the imminence of Armageddon and the Second Coming, what with the situations in Iraq and Israel.
Well, now they’re counting on the Rapture. Otherwise they’d have to worry about things like ecology and the national debt.
I’ve certainly heard the assertion about that (cf. Les), but it speaks either to my gullibility or my lack of imagination to believe that more than a handful of true whackos really see the approaching End Times (as they believe it) as an excuse for poor stewardship of the economy or the environment (let alone a justification of it).