And don\'t forget to check out this one:
Although I don\'t agree with all the implications in this article with regard to Bush, I do consider the observations made with regard to Kerry very interesting and revealing:
Of what, Brady?
I would definitely consider George Bush a more significant problem to America than Islamic terrorism. No contest. His environmental policies are dangerous. His statesmanship is nonexistant. His depth of thinking overall is so demonstrably shallow and devoid of intellectual grounding that he\'s very accurately portrayed as \"shooting from the hip.\"
His leadership and pursuit of a war on terror has demonstrably increased Islamic terrorism.
All arguments of \"equal compromise\" aside in examining the foibles of Republicans and Democrats alike, I will personally always vet my vote in two ways...
First, I need to know I\'m not throwing it away. That\'s where the Nader argument, for instance, fails with me. I respect his intellect and his intentions, however, he\'s not going to get a single vote from the everyman end of the bell curve.
A Republican or Democrat will win the election.
So next...and mind you, across party lines...I am going to cast my vote towards the candidate of greater intellect.
To the subject of the blog you quoted, doesn\'t the author sound as if she\'s wallowing in a bit of righteous indignation? I wonder how she weighs in on Bush\'s bons mots from the press corps event? Is calling the president an *** any less offensive than same said president cracking jokes about searching for WMDs in the Oval Office (since none turned up in his little war)?
I actually say no-harm-no-foul both ways, because life is too weird to begrudge anyone a joke.
However, there is no wrong that Mr. Kerry could possibly do in his pursuit of the office which would deter me from voting for him. He is the candidate of more considered thought, and greater intellectual weight. And that gets my vote.
As you\'ll know if you read the Martha Stewart thread, I\'m against both candidates.
While I don\'t like Bush and I didn\'t vote for him the last time around, I definitely don\'t like Kerry either.
What I thought was interesting in the article is how Kerry essentially undid alot of progress that was being made to free Iran\'s population from the heavy hand of the theocracy. That in addition to how all the tyrannical Communist countries seem to love him. That says alot to me. After all, he\'s spent all these years loving them. So I wouldn\'t exactly characterize Kerry as much of a statesman either.
My view is that if you constantly vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil. And so long as you do that, you will get nothing BUT evil.
I think we can all agree (or maybe we can\'t) that third parties are needed and that, in an ideal world, we would be able to vote for somebody other than a Democrat or Republican. So how do we get a little closer to that ideal world? The viability of third parties isn\'t going to happen over night. It\'s going to happen gradually over time, election by election. So we must start the process now.
There\'s no better time than the present to get the wheels of change turning. If we always wait for someone else to take the first step, then change will never happen and we will always be stuck choosing one or the other of the Insider\'s picks - Republican or Democrat. As I\'ve said elsewhere, change has to start some time with somebody. And that somebody is us, and the time is now.