Vote Bush... If You Know What's Good For You

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

-Vice President Cheney, 09/07/2004

For the past few weeks, the Bush campaign has been intimating that citizens will be less safe under a John Kerry administration. Not one for subtlety, Dickie Cheney decided to make that statement more overtly. With apologies to Al, I was inspired to create a bumper sticker, suitable for printing.

Not that overt fear is a new G.O.P. campaign tactic. Reagan's bear ad from 1984 used that tactic, using the humorous tagline of "prepared for peace." (The Great Communicator was less prepared for peace than the current Prez.) Bush the First also played the fear card, with the Willie Horton spot. Incidentally, I love the part in that last commercial where they list Horton's actions (Kidnapping, Stabbing, Raping) on the screen, one by one in giant lettering-- it reminds me of late 80's game shows.

I'm not sure what's worse, the fear or the lies. (By the way, read Al Franken's new book. Borrow it from Matty if you have to.) Whatever it is, I'm slowly getting burned out on Decision 2004. Mostly because I truly believe that Bush is incompetent and his administration is filled with competently evil people; partially, though, because I don't feel any of the attachment to John Kerry that I did to Bill Clinton. I don't know if that speaks to me being more jaded than I was in 1992 (or '96), or if Kerry simply isn't resonating with me. I certainly don't dislike Kerry (or myself) enough to vote for anyone else in November-- but is "because he's not George Bush" a good enough reason for voting for someone?

if you don't read this book, we'll get hit again and we'll be....

My true frustration is that there is no healthy debate in the media. (And anyone who claims that the mainstream media is completely liberal should be kicked repeatedly in the shins while watching Fox News.) You're either Tucker Carlson or you're James Carville. Bush is either a strong patriot who defended this country in a time of crisis, or he's a buffoon on the Bin Laden payroll who flew members of that family out of the country on 9/11. Kerry is either a decorated veteran who would try to extend medical benefits to the poor, or he's the most liberal senator in America who is trumpeting his (falsely obtained) medals too often.

In other words, there's no one like me on TV-- someone who doesn't like Bush, but doesn't necessarily believe all of the vitriol that Michael Moore spills; someone who might like Kerry, but isn't sure that another millionaire Yale grad is the best solution for the middle class. Granted, this doesn't make for as good of television as two rabid pols convinced that their candidate is the greatest ever and the other candidate is a fornicator. Are these people being completely honest? Or just showing off for the cameras? I must admit to some skepticism when I hear that someone is "100% behind" either one of the candidates.

"bush has butt sex with crippled puppies"

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind hearing someone say that he or she isn't quite sure? Or is the fact that I'm not sure an indication that Kerry is a weaker candidate than Clinton was?

would she vote for bubba's third term?

(Also, am I the only one who wouldn't mind if this article got to a point sooner rather than later?)

My point is this: I haven't made up my mind on a Presidential candidate yet because a) for the first time I'm not enamored with the Democratic candidate, and b) (more importantly) I don't think there is any neutral source of information available to help me make this choice. Star Tribune? Liberal. Pioneer Press? Conservative. Network news? Liberal. Cable news? Conservative. I'll stop now, but the comparisons can go on and on, comparing periodicals, radio stations, etc. Each outlet has its own political bent and spins its stories in that way (even though most would deny it.) It then becomes a feeding frenzy-- Republicans watch Bill O'Reilly and read National Review and become more and more convinced that they're "right"-- because they hear what they want to hear. Similarly, Dems go to Michael Moore movies and read the New York Times-- because they hear what they want to hear.

Which leaves me with... Nader? No. Can't be. I refuse. It leaves me on a search for a source for neutral, non-partisan reviews of the candidates' past performances and proposed policies. If this exists, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to have to vote for the old standby of whichever candidate has owned a major league baseball team. Unfortunately that means... FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

strikeoutegery

:-P

-WA