Quote:
Originally posted by nostatic
Let me push your analogy a bit further. I can think of a few good reasons to change the lightbulb even if it does work. For instance, if the current lightbulb is wasting energy. Or if the current lightbulb presents a danger to others due to catastrophic failure or poor design/execution. There are those who, rightly or wrongly, believe that the current lightbulb is pursuing policies that are wasteful and dangerous. The only problem is that the replacement bulb might not be much better...
|
I realize this. And what's worse is nothing that is said of the new lightbulb can be believed to make me think it is a better lightbulb. And those who say it is, have agendas of their own that does not serve me, the one who needs light, any viable improvement.
Again, it's swapping out one for the other.
But to further your analogy: 1. the war is much larger than Kerry. As he said, if elected, the U.S. forces are staying in Iraq. He even sounds as if he might enlargen the military. The fact is Iraq will not resolve itself dependent on who is in office. So the Democrats should stop hoping that with Kerry in, the U.S. will be out.
2. Job issues. Other than low-wage jobs, no one is going to experience the high-paying jobs of a decade ago. For that, something akin to another technology boom will be needed. And
no jobs are coming back from overseas. The consumers are too used to paying the prices they are now for their products. If they want to pay more, for the sake of something being "made in America," the consumer can also expect to pay more, which no one, not even the most ideological consumer will do.
3. Environment: much as the same as with the war and jobs. The issue is too large to tackle. Messing with it by raising taxes or hog-tying industry will cause a core disturbance with the voters. Kerry would be bounced in 4yrs, and we're back to square one.
Bush and Kerry are wealthy men. And increasingly throughout these elections and presidencies, it seems that the wealthier the man, the more prone they are to interests other than the country at large. Both candidates are bought and sold. And even if we had a viable third party candidate, who's to say they also would not be bought and sold?
This is why I think extenuating circumstances will come into play which will be personalities - Bush the cowboy vs. Kerry the modern Abe Lincoln; Edwards the cutesy boy from N.C. vs. Cheney the over-sized distempered lawn gnome. Teresa vs. Laura - who knows there/who cares? With that, I imagine one should vote as to whether they like their girl with a S. African accent or a southern drawl. This is nothing new, of course. Nixon wowed them with Checkers. Carter had a toothy grin. Reagan was comedic.
But if it the election really just comes down to personalities instead of tangible issues, even with both parties being as far away from each other as I have ever seen, what prevents us from putting just anybody in office?
Personally, this is a matchup I'd likee: Republican nominee Jay Leno vs. Democratic nominee Elmo from Seasame Street.