 |  |
And now, time for my rant…
Americans are suffering from the delusion that we're voting for the candidate we want to come over for dinner or to be the leader of our clubhouse. People discuss which candidate seems the nicest, most sincere. Who seems polished, but not artificial. Who would get a haircut where we would or go to church with the fam and fit in OK.
Ask a random person who they’ll vote for, and chances are that their response will involve a “seem.” Obama seems to be the voice of optimism, Clinton seems to have the experience needed for the job, Huckabee seems to have the confidence to refute basic science as he reflects upon the origin of the universe. I want to ban the word “seems” from electoral discussions. The only reason that candidates seem to be anything is because their campaign manager deemed it so. They’re all politicians. They’re all that way. Some are just better at playing their part.
So a modest proposal – let’s vote according to issues. It boggles my mind that some people don’t yet know if they’ll vote for a Republican or a Democrat. The parties couldn’t be more different. One wants to end to the Iraq war, one supports it; one urges universal healthcare, one deems the idea socialist; one wants to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the other wants to uphold them. How could anyone not see a difference? There is a core difference in values between the two. For those of you not knowing which party to vote for, I want to flick you in the forehead. For those who know their party of choice but haven’t yet settled on a candidate, you’re spared the flicking but directed towards the NY Times chart offering a basic guide to where the candidates stand on issues.
For more on this, I turn to The Onion.
The official FeministChick endorsement goes to John Edwards. I have been a curious spectator of his for some time, but his early specific stances he voiced on Iraq, climate change. and taxes wooed me and made me a believer. I dig a candidate who admits that taxes will have to go up in order to accomplish his goals; I’m willing to pay more taxes if the money goes toward healthcare, alternative energy sources, and other things that aren't war. I think gleefully of the idea of Edwards repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and directing the dollars toward his healthcare initiative. Edwards does get a deduction in cool points for his lack of support for gay marriage, but everyone shy of Kucinich does as well. (Kucinich has my heart – for being as short as he is, he has the biggest backbone of any candidate.) However, my support tends to be the kiss of death – ask the Redskins, Howard Dean, and nearly everyone on my Oscar ballot last year. So sorry about that, John.
3 comments:
I'd say you should start cheering for Romney to ensure he loses but it appears that he's doing a fine job of fricking it up on his own.
My dear, tonight we BINGO!!!
Edwards? Are you serious? You're telling me that you'd vote for a candidate who has said that Al Qaeda is "a pretty good organization", who has admitted that he is a regular user of methamphetamines, and who has, on three separate occasions, declared that he enjoys worshipping Satan?
AND he claims Jar Jar Binks to be the greatest cinematic character since Daryl Hannah's role in Steel Magnolias. But other than that, the terrorist support, drug use, and dark worship... I mean, his healthcare plan really is THAT good.
Post a Comment