Tomorrow in 102 I get my first batch of student papers--wheee! And Cha just called to tell me Green Party presidential candidate Peter Cobb is spending the night Thursday and we're having houseguests for dinner.
Fucking bullshit! You know, I am all for building third parties and what-not, but I'm also for not supporting Cobb or Nader in this election. Hopefully Cobb is here to help out some of the actually good local candidates for Congress--I don't want to hear a peep about voting for third parties in the presidential election. I'm going to have to hide upstairs in my own house in order to not argue with the Green idealists.
Well, maybe there'll be a bourbon drinker or two in the bunch. Maybe one of the Greens will have some greens! I'm off Friday except for my 9am lit class, and I can teach Joyce with a raging drunk going. It'll help my inflection when I read a page from Finnegan's Wake aloud.
Christ, I've gone from Cockburn to Alterman and the idea makes me want to puke. But it's W.--so what can I do? Hold my nose and vote for Kerry.
Speaking of Kerry, he's trying to do Dean, and it's better than before, but still way too wooden. I think this guy out-Gores Gore. He guy can't relax. I've purposefully missed his recent TV appearances: Letterman, Regis, Dr. Phil. I caught his motorcycle entrance to the Leno show in January and that was perhaps the worst thing I'd ever seen. I saw some footage of him windsurfing the other day and I swear he looked like a cigar store Indian drifting across the Bay on a surfboard; same with the clips of his Colorado ski vacation, where Kerry resembled Treebeard sliding down the slopes; even his attempts to jam on rock guitar look awkward. Somebody needs to 'emergency makeover' this guy, or get his Harley on "Pimp my Ride." Does it suck that image matters? Yes. Does it suck that a woefully large portion of the electorate base their voting decisions on who they'd rather have over for a BBQ? Yes. But them's the breaks. Kerry can't get "genuine" down, and it won't matter that Bush's version of "genuine" is absolutely disingenuous so long as he appears more "genuine" than Kerry.
7 comments:
At the risk of being verbally (bloggedly??) beaten over the head with a cigar store indian why is Kerry better than Bush? As you know I'm a shaky johnny cum lately to the voting scene and politics are definitely not my forte. I usually try and avoid them altogether. I've tried to keep abreast of events since things have gotten so out of hand but I feel pretty washed out about the upcoming election--do I want someone evil to my face, someone evil behind my back, or some old weirdo who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell... When you use the phrase "hold my nose and vote" my head goes whhrahhh and I feel like Vidal when he says most Americans just don't even bother. What to do--is it a big responsibility or is it just a farce.
It doesnt matter what any of them stand for, it is that Bush makes the IMPRESSION he has unwavering convictions. That is why 100% of his supporters love him. That is why people on the Left go on Right-wing talk shows and get all respectful toward their host--because they secretly want to be like them. Kerry, like Gore, seems to be burdened with intelligence, which allows him to see the many sides of the issue or re-think previous statements (a.k.a. "flip-flopper").
What a luxury to be like George Bush! Annointed with an enviably narrow mind utterly free of noise, and a Book to base all his decisions on, Bush looks like fucking George C. Scott compared to Kerry. People eat that shit up!
Ok, well, you’ve asked The Question. There’s unfortunately no Easy Answer. I’ll put it this way: I think the role of government should include measures which counteract some of the ills of capitalism (for example: the tendency for wealth to accrue at the top, the economic degradation, the amoral pursuit of things). I think government should provide education, job training, health care, day care—or require companies to do so. I think industry and private sector institutions need to be regulated and watched by government agencies to ensure they’re not harming consumers, polluting the environment, depleting or abusing public resources, or harming us in other ways. I think the government needs to be responsive to people, and further I believe strongly that the government needs to be separate from organized religious institutions and powerful financial and industrial concerns whose influence via contributions and bribes can easily outweigh the often superior number of voices of your “average� Janes and Joes. I think the government should intervene in cases where civil rights are being violated, and should guarantee all citizens equal freedoms and privileges as much as possible.
Is John Kerry an ideal candidate given what I want and or need? Hell, no. He’s beholden to some big donors himself, he’s way to “free trade all the way� gung-ho for my taste, he’s too hawkish, he’s too weak on gay marriage (which he probably believes should be legal, but won’t say it because it would cost him votes), he’s shifty and devious and slippery, and he distances himself from past stances which were completely appropriate and correct in order to score political points (ie his principled and just criticisms of US war crimes in Viet Nam). But John Kerry is much more palatable than W. on the environment, on education, on civil rights, on labor issues, and on common sense changes needed for “Homeland Security� than Bush, who masks his ideological crusade behind bullshit rhetoric while acting in ways completely contrary to the interests of most Americans (and frankly, most world citizens).
W. is rolling back an entire century of progressive reforms in labor laws, environmental protections, civil rights laws, privacy laws under the belief that somehow we should trust the rich and powerful to do the right thing, and as they become richer and more powerful their wealth will trickle down throughout society. Industry won’t pollute because it’s bad for business! Trust them to regulate themselves! Laissez-faire economics is the ideal and most democratic way to ensure the pursuit of happiness for all! This “philosophy� has been discredited so many times that I won’t go into the examples here (though the most recent examples in the US were catastrophic, including the decade before the Great Depression). W. has foolish and insensible ideas about foreign policy, and is completely unable to admit mistakes and or hold people under his authority accountable when they make mistakes. W. is a corrupt businessman running a corrupt, secretive, hypocritical group of war profiteers and extremists whose ideas are so far out of the mainstream as to be scary—I don’t think Bush is a Nazi or a fascist, but his Justice Dept. and his propaganda techniques are certainly close to the methods used up to and after Weimar’s Reichstag Fire emergencies. Kerry is at least nearer the mainstream view of most Americans. W. is associated with dangerous religious fanaticisms, and I believe him when he says that he thinks God chose him to be President, and it fills me with unspeakable horror that this guy (who thinks all Jews and Muslims are going to Hell) has his finger near the atomic trigger.
It’s possible that four or five Supreme Court Justices are going to die or retire, and Bush (with a Republican House that’s very extreme and a Republican Senate that’s a bit more moderate but still dangerous) could stack the Court with truly scary cats who will be around for DECADES throwing out laws and policies I hold as necessary tinkerings accomplished through much hardship in the 20th century. Kerry is more likely to put palatable, reasonable, nuanced thinkers on the bench.
I dunno. One of the freedoms Americans enjoy is to not participate in the elections or to pay attention at all; I don’t judge those who do so, because we can’t have freedoms if I tell people they’re wrong to not vote. BUT, I’d point out that nations with long-standing democratic and tolerant traditions have turned bad in the past, and usually it’s when the electorate doesn’t care or pay attention or participate.
This is rambling and not as precisely argued as I’d like but WTF, I’m at work and trying to pretend I’m earning my money while typing on the sly.
This is in response to DU's post--I just saw something monstrous over there and I haven't read it yet. Mercy!
Someone at work used the "flip-flopper" description yesterday! They were arguing that this "negative" quality is actually a very good one. I tend to think of a fish flopping around on a dock--flipping back and forth and not actually putting any time, thought or will into your decisions. I agree, being able to change your mind is important--you shouldn't be locked down--but maybe being to open minded is an extreme also.
One other thing--I guess you could see Nader as having unwavering convictions also...
And on a theme I'm much much more comfortable with--have you seen a film w/ George C. Scott called Hardcore?? And cripes--I just saw that Russ Meyer kicked the bucket!!!
Yeah, Conniption told me Russ kicked off yesterday and I forgot to do a memorial post. Wonder what his mausoleum will be shaped like?
Nah, that was pretty well argued--I guess I just wanted some reassurance. I mean, I know W is a jackass and very detrimental to the US, and I know that voting for someone outside of the big two would give it to W (but I'm disgusted when people berate someone for their choice)-- I just wanted some more evidence on why Kerry would be any better. And your post had some good points--especially the Supreme Court oldsters. You're very correct--one should participate. I was just moaning about how frustrating it is to once again take the lesser of two evils. Hoo-Ha!
Oh, and this is all assuming that the fucking election won't be rigged AGAIN!
Post a Comment