A voters paradox...

Moses · 10-05-2004, 02:39 PM

Had lunch with a friend today. He's a thoughtful, somewhat conservative 45 year old professional. I asked him what he thought of George Bush. His response?

"I think he should face impeachment, but I'm voting for him"

He went on to make a fairly rational support of his position. Strange times indeed.

mikester · 10-05-2004, 02:54 PM

Seems to be a common thread among voters from both sides really. While they want to vote for a clean candidata one simply does not exist - our choices either way do not permit us to vote with a clear conscience (I believe).

Deal with it - it's a fact of life that decisions like these are not easy; nor are they crystal clear.

There are plenty of things that I admire about our current president and plenty of things that I absolutely can't stand about John Kerry.

Problem is - I have to vote for one of them...

Burnin' oil · 10-05-2004, 03:27 PM

This seems to often be the case, which is why I usually vote for a third party candidate.

ed martin · 10-05-2004, 07:54 PM

I think that for most people the feeling is that going into Iraq was a bad move. At the time it was decided however, the consensus was for both parties, based on the intelligence at the time, that it was the right thing to do. Bush made that decision and now, right or wrong, he has to own up to it. It's like Powell's pottery barn rule," You break it you own it." It's a done deal and there's no going back.

I think that even though Bush may have broken it, and there's a lot of people unhappy about it, he's probably the best qualified to fix it.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by ed martin
I think that even though Bush may have broken it, and there's a lot of people unhappy about it, he's probably the best qualified to fix it.

Couldnt' agree less.

This administration has only two small glimmers of success in 4 years: Afghanistan and Libya. The rest is a disaster.

GWB has shown he is unable to respond to shifting situations or even deal with more than a handful at a time.

dd74 · 10-05-2004, 09:23 PM

Burnin' Oil has a point I've believed since '00. If we're all so unhappy with the typical two candidates, where's the (viable) third party candidate?

ed martin · 10-05-2004, 09:39 PM

Superman?

jyl · jyl's Garage

While we're waiting for Superman, I'll weigh in with my thoughts on the third party candidate thing.

I like having only two meaningful political parties and I hope it stays that way. Right now, when one party wins, they really win. The Republicans have the White House, the Congress, they are most definitely in control and they absolutely get their agenda through. Later the Democrats will win, and they will really win, be in control, and get their agenda through. While this is distressing for the party out of power, at least ideas get tried, we can find out if they are good ideas or bad ideas, and the blame or credit is pretty clear.

Compare to democracies that have lots of parties, like Italy or Israel. No one party has enough support to rule, they have to cobble together a coalition government, so policy ends up being a stew of what the various coalition partners want, and sometimes a small party gets a disproportionate amount of power because their 5 seats are all that gives the coalition its majority. As a result, there is a whole lot of log-jam and the government can't ever tackle tough issues.

Our government, for all its faults, isn't near as log-jammed as it could be. Clinton got a lot of major legislation through, and you can't deny that Bush has gotten his way on most major issues.

Nader and the Greens have it all wrong. They are wasting their time out there to the extreme left. They should recruit an immensely appealing leader (Ahnold?) and form a party aimed at the swing voters - the 10% or so who the Repubs and Demos don't have sewn up. If they can command a swing vote of even 5%, they'll wield influence all out of proportion to that their voter base. Perot was kind of headed that way, he just didn't have the staying power.

Superman · 10-06-2004, 12:23 PM

Given my rather bipolar reputation of late, I'm not sure quite how to take this apparent invitation. Awe, what the heck, I'm flattered until notified otherwise.

A political leader in Africa (I think) won election. Makes sense, since his was the only party on the ticket. In something of a democracy, as I recall (they say memory is the second thing to go). He was asked what kind of choice voters have when there is no second ticket to compare. He said something like: "Well, the American system provides no more diverse set of choices than my country's elections just did. You see, there is really only one party in America. But in typical American fashion, you have two of them."

He was talking about the "money" party, which is divided into dems and reps. But of course, if anyone acts like they want to slide an ACTUAL choice in there, he is shouted down as a communist. Because frankly, the only direction we can go in, is the direction of wanting to make DELIBERATE decisions instead of delegating them all to industry interests. Some call it socialism and it is quite a popular concept in almost every developed country on the planet, but the shouters in AMerica pretend it is communism.

The only other direction we can go in is one that considers the happiness and security of the PEOPLE to be paramount, instead of the profits of corporations. But again, we're not going to go down that road until America wakes up and realizes that the interests of industry sometimes run at cross-purposes with the interests of people.

island911 · 10-06-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Couldnt' agree less.

This administration has only two small glimmers of success in 4 years: Afghanistan and Libya. The rest is a disaster.

GWB has shown he is unable to respond to shifting situations or even deal with more than a handful at a time.

So, de-throning saddam doesn't count? . . . and how many terrorists have been eliminated? How many fewer "suicide bombers" have detonated in Israel (among other places). . .now that saddams funding has vanished?

The fact that we have only 5.*% unemployment, after the inherited recession, and 9/11/01.

Get real. If Kerry had been in office, France would be producing ALL the worlds kethcup, and they would still be whining; nh', now is not de' tiiiiime. ....

BTW, What have Kerry or Edwards done for this country in the last 4 years? . . besides sitting on their asses, doing nothing (which I am thankful for)

ed martin · 10-06-2004, 02:10 PM

Wasn't Saddam offering a monetary reward to the Palistine families of suicide bombers that attacked Isreal? Isn't that outrageous enough to justify his dethronement? Which is actually what island 911 just said, but its a good question. To think that his reward system stopped with the Isreal/Palistine conflict and didn't expand to other targets with more distant borders is being a bit niave.

Evans, Marv · 10-06-2004, 04:04 PM

Like a bunch of other people, I have very mixed feelings about what is going on now. My hope is that Bush himself (& maybe Cheney) are taking a stand, which may be unsettling and maybe unpopular in the short term, but for the general good in the long term. And, it may be political suicide for them. I for one am tired of the predominant policies of inaction and always taking the politically and economically advantageous course. This has resulted in total inaction by the U.N. and everybody else for decades - as evidenced by what is still happening in Africa and other places today. I'm in hopes that Bush is doing this with the long term idea of planting a democratic seed in a region that needs it. I'm not saying it couldn't have been done another (maybe better & less heavyhanded) way, but it's the way he & his administration chose. For many years, I've asked myself why nothing ever seems to get done to improve world situations. I hope Bush has chosen this as an opportunity to get something concrete accomplished in that regard. If so, history will show it. That is why I support what we are doing - for now. I think Cheney and Rumsfeld (especially) are arrogant and for that reason, don't listen to advise as they should - and I think Powell is uncomfortable with that but keeping his mouth shut for now. Basically, I will vote for the Bush ticket, with feelings of reservations. But, I fear if Kerry gets in, we will go back to the policies of inaction and always doing the politically and economic and expedient thing at the expense of human suffering around other parts of the world - as has been the case for a long time now. You guys can flame me if you want, but that's how I feel.

Simon S · 10-06-2004, 04:53 PM

Isn’t voting third party a waste of time?

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 05:11 PM

I think the impeachment thing would caqrry some water if the situation were a little different. Bush acted on the intelligence as if it were gospel, I'll give you that. I don't think he made anything up or deliberately misled us. Our intelligence systems failed us(no offense to Yankee). Moving forward I want our President to be able to trust the intelligence he gets, but I also want him to be proactive as Bush was. It's a bad situation now. Remember, Tenet told Bush WMD's were a "slam dunk". Bush is guilty of trusting the system as were all the congressmen who agreed with him (Kerry & Edwards).

island911 · 10-06-2004, 05:22 PM

WMD . . . Here is an interesting article. (Saddams Interrogation)
On one hand Saddam says, he was big-time after Nukes, to keep-up with Iran. OTOH, Saddam gives-up nothing about said Nuke program . . and "Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate _ to seek something in return before giving something up. "

I think that he is fighting for his life, under the guisse of fighting for revising history, and framing his legacy.