Yeah, he sucks... but at least they're strong nuances.
September 30, 2004 7:08 AM   Subscribe

Kerry Haters For Kerry Are you going to vote for John Kerry even though you find him unpleasant, annoying, arrogant, waffling, misguided or just generally unappealing in some profound way? Then you've come to the right place! We're Kerry Haters for Kerry -- perhaps his largest constituency! No need to hide in the Kerry-hating closet anymore while you pretend to everyone that he'll be a great president. Here you are among friends. You can speak freely and honestly. You can admit: 'He's awful! And I'm for him!' via Wonkette
posted by psmealey (66 comments total)
 

posted by psmealey at 7:11 AM on September 30, 2004


".... Are you going to vote for John Kerry George W. Bush even though you find him unpleasant, annoying, arrogant, waffling, misguided or just generally unappealing in some profound way?"
posted by troutfishing at 7:15 AM on September 30, 2004


I could cover "unpleasant, annoying, arrogant, and misguided" too, but I think I'll just touch on "misguided", with a subtle gesture towards:

IRAQ
posted by troutfishing at 7:22 AM on September 30, 2004


hey, at least he doesn't fuck goats. then i'd have to vote for a goat-fucker.
posted by fuq at 7:25 AM on September 30, 2004


I'm really irritated by the whole "oh well, I guess I'll vote for Kerry" attitude, as if Kerry is the one people are straining to justify voting for. I think a lot of the people touting the "I want to vote for Kerry, but I'm so unmotivated by him" line are actually Republicans having issues with Bush.

I can understand people wanting to vote Republican, and even while I think they're nuts I understand how people can have the Security-Mom Dubya-is-the-only-thing-stopping -Osama-from-killing-my-kids-at-their-soccer- practice mentality to vote for Bush on security issues.

What I refuse to believe, though, is that 50% of the country honestly doesn't mind that Bush and his cabinet is at least arguably evil, blatantly racist, and woefully irresponsible for how screwed-up this country's economy and international status has become. It's like the cafateria at the slaughterhouse... imagine trying to have your burger for lunch while trying to pretend you didn't just watch the process of how it got to your plate.

This sounds pretentious, I know, but I really feel that a lot of people pretending that it's Kerry's lack of substance that pulls them to Bush is a cover for their own denial- that they're voting for a failure of an Executive like Bush- oh, but it's not because they want to, obviously... I mean what choice do they have?

There's been this lingering statement that if Bush get's re-elected "America deserves what it gets." I think a lot of Bush voters are trying to make it look like they want to vote for him, but don't want to feel responsible.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:38 AM on September 30, 2004


This is exactly why I get frustrated with the left (yes, yes, the left isn't some huge monolithic organism). Do you see the Right doing this sort of bullshit? No. They are 100% behind Bush - the Christian Fundies, the Wall Streeters, the hawks, the neocons. All are cheerleading in unison. Dammit, freaking support your candidate with all your energy, and then when he wins, you can take him to task. Because you will at least have a seat at the table to discuss matter. If Bush wins, there will be no seat, and no table. (on preview - exactly what XQUZYPHYR says too)
posted by plemeljr at 7:40 AM on September 30, 2004


Yes, very subtle. I suppose whichever Team Rove franchisee came up with this considered calling it KerryHatesFreedomButIllVoteForHimAnywayBecauseImALiberalJackass.com but figured someone might see through that one.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:41 AM on September 30, 2004


Bush and his cabinet is at least arguably evil

Please support this argument.

blatantly racist

While you're at it, support that one too.

and woefully irresponsible for how screwed-up this country's economy and international status has become

So you mean to say they're *not responsible* for how "screwed-up" the economy is (you say)? They're *not responsible* for the international status of the U.S.? I'm afraid I don't understand you.
posted by rocketman at 7:44 AM on September 30, 2004


whatever happened to this website? was that not good enough for you?
posted by pxe2000 at 7:52 AM on September 30, 2004


To demonstrate, conclusively, your detachment from reality, by every measure, the economy, these days is good, or very good; about as good as it was 7-9 years ago.

If you can't accept that, consider your delusional.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:00 AM on September 30, 2004


Disclaimer notes: "Do not confuse this site with JohnKerryisaDouchebagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com. That site didn't really say that John Kerry was a douchebag. This site thinks he is!"

From my standpoint, I don't hate John Kerry, I just think he''s a pretty lame candidate. I am confounded by the fact that by most measures, everything is worse today than it was 4 years ago, but Kerry has not (until very recently) turned the election into a referendum on Bush. Instead, he set himself up as a strong leader at the convention, and been playing mostly defense ever since.

PP: that may or may not be true, but for the sake of argument, if it is, we have absolutely put ourselves in hock to get here. What did the deficit look like 7-9 years ago, btw? And with an uncertain future in Iraq and elsewhere militarily, how much deeper in the red will we need to go if we continue along the current path?
posted by psmealey at 8:04 AM on September 30, 2004


is at least arguably evil

I thought we had all agreed that characterizing something or someone as "evil" was evidence of a weak mind and a tendency to reduce complicated issues into simplistic notions (see, e.g., "The Axis of Evil").

XQWHATEVER and plemeljr, what you're agitating for isn't all that different from the rightly despised Republican loyalty oath: "If you're not 100% behind John Kerry, and don't profess your unconditional love at every turn, you're just a closeted Republican!"

I'm sorry, but it's complicated. You may love him, but not everyone does -- even those who really, really want to. Many, many, many people hate the Hobson's choice presented by this campaign, and have no real confidence that Kerry will be an effective leader, but are voting for him anyway because voting for Bush just plain sucks more.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:15 AM on September 30, 2004


election time is a golden time for domain registrars
posted by mr.marx at 8:20 AM on September 30, 2004


What did the deficit look like 7-9 years ago, btw?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Yes, 7-9 years ago, the economy was "turning around the corner." Unfortunately for Dubya, Clinton didn't lead economic recovery from a net loss remotely near that of the current one. The previous administration increased the debt by about $150 billion, which Clinton reduced over eight years in office.

In four years, Bush II has converted the budget from about a $230 billion surplus into about $305 billion debt- a net loss of over half a trillion dollars, and over three times the prior administration debt increase that Clinton attempted a successful recovery from.

Keep in mind as well that Clinton resolved the Bush I-era debt by raising taxes. I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly there is not a single credible model that even remotely suggests Bush would be able to restore the budget surplus by the end of a second term, even if he raised taxes or slashed domestic spending on education/healthcare/port security/etc. (which, given the military expenditures for the next few years, will be almost inevitable.)

So in regard to FreedomParamus, I guess he's right. We're all very delusional, down here on planet Earth.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:26 AM on September 30, 2004


Me, standing: "Hi, I'm Shane, and I'm a Kerry-hater who's going to vote for Kerry."

Group, seated: "Hi, Shane!"

/support group.

Thank you, psmealey. I need positive reinforcement.
posted by Shane at 8:36 AM on September 30, 2004


XQUZYPHYR, I usually vote republican and I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like the fact that Shrub is arguably evil, blatantly racist, and woefully irresponsible for how screwed-up this country's economy and international status has become.

Unfortunately, I also don't like Kerry. At all. I've been listening to him speak, and he sometimes slips and seems like he's more of a Republican than the Republicans are. A lot of what he says sounds like he's toeing the Democratic party line and once he's elected he won't truly do what he's saying he will to get the nomination and election. That leaves me in a *lot* of doubt about what he's actually going to do if we give him the cookie. So yes, I need to somehow justify my vote for Kerry, because it's out of my normal pattern yet I've got a baaaaaad feeling about it. I also don't think that we'll get the budget situation fixed without a lot of tax boosts and pulling out of Iraq (the latter I'm 100% in favor of), but then the democratic party line requires Kerry to say that he's going to saddle us with a national healthcare program. The "We need to balance the budget! Raise taxes! Cut back! ... Let's implement a huge national healthcare system!! YAY!" just confuses the shit out of me.

Face it, both of the candidates suck big hairy donkey balls. Usually when that happens I vote down the republican party line, but I can't in good conscience make that decision this time. Oh well, I guess I'll vote for Kerry.
posted by SpecialK at 8:37 AM on September 30, 2004


XQUZYPHYR, do you have a graph of the budget deficit as a percentage of GNP? How about one of budget deficits in times of war.

Not even a "nice try."
posted by ParisParamus at 8:38 AM on September 30, 2004


I'm not for a loyalty oath, don't put words in my mouth. One of the left's greatest assets and biggest problem, is that it is made up of a large coalition of people, who basically just want to make the world better for all. Coalescing behind monolithic ideas and candidates is tough because we always want things to be better. The Right, on the other hand, is more top-down, strong leader organization, and naturally fall in line.
posted by plemeljr at 8:44 AM on September 30, 2004


I love my candidate, but I hate his freedom.
posted by adampsyche at 8:47 AM on September 30, 2004


but then the democratic party line requires Kerry to say that he's going to saddle us with a national healthcare program. The "We need to balance the budget! Raise taxes! Cut back! ... Let's implement a huge national healthcare system!! YAY!" just confuses the shit out of me.

Don't hold your breath--we'll be very old (or dead) by the time that happens. Don't use national health (which more and more of us need each year, it seems) as a reason not to get rid of Bush.

Elections are always a referendum on the incumbent--Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago?
posted by amberglow at 8:49 AM on September 30, 2004


the budget deficit as a percentage of GNP

Every right-winger parrots this phrase like it actually means something. Why is it significant to tie the budget deficit to the total output of goods and services? When you run the deficit in whatever the econonmic climate, you are still adding to the federal debt burden. This means that more of your tax dollars are going to federal debt service than they are to services. Over the long term this means erosion of services (effect seen today in the mostly ineffectual Dept of Internal Revenue... which results in an even more negative effect on the deficit), as well as a continued weakening of the dollar, increase of interest rates on government securities and a longer term negative effect on trade.
posted by psmealey at 8:51 AM on September 30, 2004


" Why is it significant to tie the budget deficit to the total output of goods and services?"

Why go into debt to buy a house? Or invest in college? Or buy new equiptment? Debt isn't bad, it's good, provided you're buying things with it.

In any case, keep going along with the mantra. Kerry will lose, Iraq will stablize, the national debt will gradually decline,

And you will find some other sky-is-falling issue to obsess over...
posted by ParisParamus at 9:02 AM on September 30, 2004


How about one of budget deficits in times of war?

Ah, yes, "times of war". Sounds so inevitable, doesn't it? Like the waxing and waning of the moon...

ParisParamus, which dipstick was it that took your country to war? Right. That's what I thought.
posted by 327.ca at 9:06 AM on September 30, 2004


Face it, both of the candidates suck big hairy donkey balls.

Face it, BOTH OF THE TWO PARTIES SUCK BIG HAIRY DONKEY BALLS, and they have for ages. WE ARE SCREWED as long as we blindly accept the idea that we have to vote for one of two rich, corrupt, interest-group puppets. The two party system is a joke, a trap, and everyone except big business and big lobbying groups loses.

"We're serving two specials today, so you always have a choice. Would you like roten eggs and ham or rotten ham and eggs?"

IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.

Fuck me, are we ever going to evolve out of this, or is every generation going to continue accepting what they're taught?
posted by Shane at 9:17 AM on September 30, 2004


Iraq will stablize, the national debt will gradually decline

On that level of abstraction, nothing ever happens without a concerted effort to make it happen. So far I haven't heard of any plan from the Bush Administration to make either of these things happen. Yet, we're all to take it on faith that it will happen.

I'm sorry, I forget. Who's delusional?
posted by psmealey at 9:19 AM on September 30, 2004


I like kerry. I think he is a good guy and I agree with his positions and I'm going to be glad to vote for him.

Bush and his cabinet is at least arguably evil

Please support this argument.


if I may butt in, from today's front page: Plan Would Let U.S. Deport Suspects to Nations That Might Torture Them

posted by mcsweetie at 9:20 AM on September 30, 2004


I like Kerry and I'm voting for him, this is yet another dirty tactic by Team Rove to undermine Kerry.

And its nice to see PP is back to baiting people with lame taunts. Oh yeah, the debt's going to settle itself out all on its on, we just have to, you know, give the asswipe who ran it up another four years to sit around and send it to his pals. That's a great plan, PP. Yawn.

Both parties may have thier problems and we need reform and lots more but its a little late in the game for it. We've gotta do what's best for the country now and that's getting George Bush out of office.

Hell, I'd rather have his dad back, he, at least, had a damned clue even if he was a dirty bastard as well.
posted by fenriq at 9:27 AM on September 30, 2004


oh, and don't forget the Supreme Court..the next president will likely get to appoint 2 (or more) Justices.

i know, fenriq--isn't it weird that even the father looks good now? hell, even Nixon's looking better and better.
posted by amberglow at 9:30 AM on September 30, 2004


"Why go into debt to buy a house? Or invest in college? Or buy new equiptment? Debt isn't bad, it's good, provided you're buying things with it."

To resell it at a profit? To enable one to get a job that pays a living wage? To increase your companies profit margin?

All of these have real world payoffs -- I have yet to hear the payoff for invading and occupying Iraq. The other things your examples have in common is a means to repay the loan, with a house you build equity, with a college loan and equipment you anticipate repaying it from your increased income. In the case of a house or equipment if you default they can foreclose or repo. In the case of a student loan they can garnish your wages or put a lien on your real property -- with any of the above if you fail to fulfill the agreement your credit rating suffers making you unable to increase your debt.

None of this is true with federal debt. There are no checks and balances and without drastic cuts in spending coupled with increased revenue there is no hope of repayment. That generally requires not going to war or raising taxes, neither of which the current administration seems inclined to do.
posted by cedar at 9:33 AM on September 30, 2004


plemeljr, you really should avoid making comments on subjects of which you're ignorant in a forum as public as this.

The right is hardly top-down but rather, like the left, an amalgam of factions; both are loose alliances of constituencies, ideologies and interest groups. I'm guessing you don't know any conservatives, and thus we all look alike to you. But President Bush got my vote in 2000 because I altho I thought his tax plans were deeply flawed, and his social conservativism antithetical to my libertarianism, I believed he would energetically promote the interests of the United States, which I believe to be, in general, congruent with the cause of progressive democracy. I did not believe his opponent would do so, and that trumped the issues I disagreed with then-Governor Bush on.

To return to the subject, which I believe had something to do with holding your nose and supporting Senator Kerry, if anyone cares this year I'm voting for Senator Kerry, whom I personally dislike and distrust. Why? Because President Bush has indeed energetically promoted the interests of the United States, but in Iraq, with astonishing and devastating incompetence. Further, this incompetence has become a hallmark of his administration. So I'll take a 5% chance of a good outcome over an assurance of failure.
posted by mojohand at 9:39 AM on September 30, 2004


Even Ben Franklin said that the first priority of a political party was RE-ELECTION.



He's watching, and he's pissed off at us poor naive fools. "225+ years and you still haven't caught on?"
posted by Shane at 9:41 AM on September 30, 2004


mcsweetie, that's a bill before the House of Representatives. Tell me how that proves Bush and his cabinet are arguably evil.

I'm against the provision in the bill - I can imagine all manner of nightmare scenarios where a tourist from Armenia gets shipped to Syria, or an Egyptian grad student coming home from vacation gets nabbed and sent to Israel - but I don't think it is a proof of evil.
posted by rocketman at 9:47 AM on September 30, 2004


hell, even Nixon's looking better and better.

Death Is No Excuse: Nixon in '08
posted by rocketman at 9:48 AM on September 30, 2004


Shane, I've read many thoughtful posts from you, but the ones in this thread are not among them. All political groups, being made up of flawed human beings, are imperfect. But these past four years have displayed the differences between the Democrats and Republicans in stark relief on a wide range of issues. And, you know, in a democracy, if you want to govern, you first must be elected.
posted by mojohand at 10:01 AM on September 30, 2004


Mojohand, since you don't have an email on your profile, here we go. You really should avoid being so patronizing in a forum as public as this. Let me expound on what I was talking about, so you don't think I'm so ignorant. The right has coalesced into a few constituencies: financial conservatives (free marketeers), religious/social conservatives, America First (neocons, hawks) and a few other groups all supporting mainly the same ideals: limiting governmental implantation of social programs, lowering taxes, removing regulations and "barriers" to commerce, and America continue to be the strong world player. Is this so debatable? While, as I said, the left is more of a coalition of people who just want things to be better, and speak out when they see it isn't - especially campaigns. Their views are way over the place, from communism, socialism to liberal hawks, the gulf of views on the left is way bigger than those on the right. The difference is that Republicans are way better at staying on message, and controlling displeasure through back-channels. Just like you might do it in a large corporation or business.

What you don't see from right is the constant "eat the children" aspect of the left. There is very little discord shown in the media, from right wing think tanks, et al. unless it is from McCain or something becomes a very big issue - big enough (like Iraq) that the party starts publically questioning it's leaders. Questioning of policies is more discreet. Remember when Kerry brought in new people in his campaign, and it was all, "KERRY IMPLOSION" - including from the left. Bush did the same thing, because all campaigns jigger people around, and there was nary a peep. What is so ignorant in saying that the right is more comfortable with a top-down organization all feeding into policy? That is exactly what the Bush Administration has. Remember how much in the first few months of his Presidency, there was all the talk of how different Bush's style was to Clinton's? The CEO v Academia? There really is two different mindsets. Why do you think Bush is going on, and on, about "flip flopping," "stay the course," etc? Because the strong leader (masculine figure) never makes mistakes. He is always in control, and will always get you there. That is why he won't admit he is wrong, and that is why many Americans like him - his strength makes up for their own loss. He is their rock in times of change, and no UN no French-loving person can take that away. Go read Metaphor, Morality, and Politics by George Lakoff and then email me, and we can talk.
posted by plemeljr at 10:27 AM on September 30, 2004


And, you know, in a democracy, if you want to govern, you first must be elected.

mojohand, I love the respectful tone of your disagreement and wish everyone conducted themselves like you. But:

How do you feel about the amount of money in campaign funds a Dem or Repub must show to be eligible for the party nomination? How much is it these days? Where does most of that money come from?

I lean Dem and I detest Bush, but I believe the net difference betwen the two parties is little. In a recent exploration into expensive congressmen junkets paid for by lobbying groups (reported yesterday by NPR, I'm Googling now and the story is worth a link), the Dems outstripped the Repubs in the matter of conspicuously bought influence. Both parties suck, that's my view, and I'm sticking to it.
posted by Shane at 10:29 AM on September 30, 2004


rocketman and amberglow, I'd vote for Nixon's wormy carcass before I'd vote for Bush's wormy brain.

Even Zombie Nixon wouldn't be as bad as Shrubya.
posted by fenriq at 10:36 AM on September 30, 2004


I'm simply not voting.

...and you all can take your dismay over that and shove it up your ass! ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:40 AM on September 30, 2004


What plemeljr said. It's about control of the message.

And it doesn't matter that we're seen to be more publicly fractured and diverse--we all know that this election counts in ways it never has before. We'll never have a candidate we all can love, and that's ok. It's actually more healthy for a democracy than shutting up and blindly supporting a candidate just because they're the chosen rep for our party--that smacks of totalitarians and dictators (Saddam anyone?). It says a lot about our strength in coming together, and building bridges and coalitions. We all need and rely on each other--something the Republicans have completely spit on and thrown out the window these past 4 years.

This is going to be a surprising election, and i'll predict the Republicans will be unpleasantly surprised at the strong turnout against Bush, if not for Kerry (unless their dirty tricks and vote suppression stuff is far more widespread than we think, which will show they're unfit to lead in a democracy anyway). The electorate is always said to be divided into 2--but it's not. It's split into many different groups and blocs, most overlapping. The Republican control of their blocs is also maybe more of a media message and spin rather than being the actual truth, given the intense and unprecedented attention paid to the base by Bush--something that shouldn't be needed at this stage of the game.
posted by amberglow at 10:41 AM on September 30, 2004


They all look like him to me, and they all end up with stamps and congressional libraries no matter how bad they are.


posted by Shane at 10:42 AM on September 30, 2004


Meant: "presidential libraries".
posted by Shane at 10:43 AM on September 30, 2004


sorry for going on, but didn't Falwell just say the other day that they own the Republican party now, for one example? That tightly-controlled message and unified appearance can come back to bite you in the ass if you're not careful, and it will.
posted by amberglow at 10:45 AM on September 30, 2004


Why go into debt to buy a house? Or invest in college? Or buy new equiptment? Debt isn't bad, it's good, provided you're buying things with it.

In any case, keep going along with the mantra. Kerry will lose, Iraq will stablize, the national debt will gradually decline,

And you will find some other sky-is-falling issue to obsess over...

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:46 AM on September 30, 2004


I'm beginning to like Badnarik.
posted by homunculus at 10:49 AM on September 30, 2004


mcsweetie, that's a bill before the House of Representatives. Tell me how that proves Bush and his cabinet are arguably evil.

it wasn't meant to be an AHA! sort of thing. it's but one example as I only have a finite amount of time on earth and too many offenses to choose from.

although in all honesty, I don't think the bush administration is evil. they're just simple crooks abusing the stupidity of the electorate with some pretty frightening consequences.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:01 AM on September 30, 2004


they're just simple crooks abusing the stupidity of the electorate with some pretty frightening consequences.

Now we're finding some common ground.
posted by rocketman at 11:10 AM on September 30, 2004


RNC creates Web Sites to Criticize Kerry

mischief, you should vote. you don't have to vote for president (hell, you don't really *have* to vote for anything), but you should cast a vote or else (IMO) you're abandoning all hope in the democratic process.

the system may be crooked, but dropping out of it won't help it (unless you can organize something huge in lieu of voting ...)

if you don't like Bush or Kerry, why not vote for the third-party candidate that matches your beliefs best? or skip the presidential election and just vote on local matters? for issues of self-interest, the presidency is not that consequential for many of us (if we're worried about destroying the planet, that's a different story ...), but *something* or *someone* on your ballot must have some appeal. no?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:27 AM on September 30, 2004


Economy != Budget Deficit/Surplus
posted by Mick at 11:42 AM on September 30, 2004




for issues of self-interest, the presidency is not that consequential for many of us

Wow. Tell that to all the minorities and women of this country, to all of the parents of soldiers.
posted by archimago at 11:58 AM on September 30, 2004


Since my employers would like me to do a little, well, work, I'll be brief. But, plemeljr, if you believe that the right can be accurately described with a handful of terms like of "financial conservatives, religious/social conservatives, America First, etc" you've made my point for me. You just don't know know anything about conservatism. And in general, if you don't know much about subject, I suggest it's not to your advantage to pontificate on it.

Take foreign policy: About the only thing a neocon like Max Boot and an authentic America First conservative like Patrick Bucannan have in common is that folks with your politics really don't like either of them.

The "control of message" issue is yet further off topic and if it has more merit, it's just a bit. Guys, there's no great conservative hivemind sending down orders. Recall the Republicans didn't have go thru a primary this year so so we missed that fratricide. But there were a lot of people on the right who were quite unhappy with President H.W. Bush, and many, I among them, did not lose sleep over his defeat in '92.
posted by mojohand at 12:13 PM on September 30, 2004


Kerry will lose, Iraq will stablize, the national debt will gradually decline,

If nothing else one must admire PP's faith-based perception and politics.

Now won't you join him in donning rose-colored glasses and singing a rousing chorus of "When you wish upon a star"?
posted by clevershark at 12:13 PM on September 30, 2004


OK, so I was interested who this person was, since nowhere does he/she list their name:

Whois
Registrant:
BOTKIN, VICTOR
ATTN: KERRYHATERSFORKERRY.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_fastcgi/2.4.2 mod_ssl/2.8.19 OpenSSL/0.9.7d PHP-CGI/0.1b
207.178.248.82 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)

Created 07-jun-2004

So no name on website, protected whois form, and the site is run via BlogWare and is hosted at Rackspace. That is about as far as I got.
posted by plemeljr at 12:13 PM on September 30, 2004


And Amberglow, you can take comfort in that the more Jerry Falwell tightens his grip, the more star systems will slip through... Sorry.

Seriously, a party that a Jerry Falwell or someone like him controls is a minority party that would have a hard time electing anything but a few Representives from South Carolina. Hard-line social conservativism drives out libertarian and other small-government conservatives, an essential building block of a winning right colalition.
posted by mojohand at 12:25 PM on September 30, 2004


Nothing in politics is so annoying as having to vote for one asshat in order to deny that vote to another asshat.
posted by alumshubby at 12:47 PM on September 30, 2004


but you should cast a vote or else (IMO) you're abandoning all hope in the democratic process.

I've abandoned most of my hope for the U.S.' bastardized mess of a democratic process, but I'm sure as hell not giving up my chance to vote against Bush.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:52 PM on September 30, 2004


Nothing in politics is as imbecilic as basing your perception of one candidate on his description in the press releases of the other candidate.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:56 PM on September 30, 2004


Okay, a little more light-heartedness is in order:

Does Kerry use fake-tanning?

Oddly, Scotland, Ireland and Australia's news are all over this. Kerry has been accused of using Botox too.
posted by Shane at 1:01 PM on September 30, 2004


Dammit, freaking support your candidate with all your energy ...

He's not my candidate -- he's the DNC's candidate. That was decided long before there was a single primary ballot cast. Perhaps if we had a equitable system for primary voting, I'd agree and stand behind him, but the fact is that the DNC and a handful of pissant states heavily influenced by the DNC decided this themselves, set it before me and threw a hissy fit when I refused to rubber-stamp it. Fuck'em.

Ironically, Kerry might have pull us together, had he the capacity for leadership. He could have put Howard Dean on the ticket instead of Edwards. Oh, but he needed Edwards to shore up the South. Gee, that worked out swell, didn't it? Not a single Southern state is polling for Kerry/Nonentity. The guy who was supposed to dazzle us with articulate declamation is even blander than Kerry (which, I suspect, was the whole idea). Fuck him.

My days of holding my nose while voting for the lesser of two evils are over. Everything -- EVERYTHING -- we've said about appointing Kerry has come to pass. We've been watching in slo-mo as the S.S. KERRY sails unerringly into the same same iceberg that sunk Gore in 2000. Get a new friggin' play book and turn to the chapter entitled: "CLUES".

Howard Dean has my vote.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.
posted by RavinDave at 1:02 PM on September 30, 2004


You're right about a lot of stuff, Ravin, but not that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. That's completely untrue, and part of the reason for that will be all of us, and how we hold Kerry accountable, unlike the Repubs and Bush.
posted by amberglow at 2:03 PM on September 30, 2004


National debt as a percentage of GDP:



The national debt peaked at 120% of GDP in 1946 due to the war effort, but Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter all did their part to bring the national debt back to pre-war levels. By the beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to 32.5% of GDP. Then, Reagan took office and the national debt took off. It rose non-stop for 12 years to 66.3% at the end of Bush's term, erasing 25 years of progress in paying down the national debt.

... I don't think much of Kerry. He voted for, and has since spoken favorably of the PATRIOT act. He was on the wrong side of the key escrow fight back in the 90's. His speaking skills are not all that. But yeah, you might as well vote for the lesser evil... unless you want to go ahead and vote for cthulhu.
posted by sfenders at 3:15 PM on September 30, 2004


> Bush II has converted the budget from about a $230 billion

Hey XQUZYPHYR, I've noted is a real tendency to flash that graphic here on Metafilter. We know figures don't lie, but sometimes liars can figure.

For instance: 1/2 of all ALL federal spending is entitlements. In particular on this graph, Johson's Great Society programs (Medicare, AFDC) are entitlements that Bush govt must pay whether GWB likes them or not.

Wouldn't your graph be fairer if it had a line showing the continuing cost of programs a President sponsored? Subtract off the entitlements of his predecessors (Social Security/Medicare/Welfare are half a $ trillion), and "Bush" has a huge surplus.

BTW, Congress controls spending, the excutive can only ask.
posted by dand at 5:03 PM on September 30, 2004


dand: "Subtract off the entitlements of his predecessors (Social Security/Medicare/Welfare are half a $ trillion), and "Bush" has a huge surplus."

You're suggesting that these entitlement programs suddenly started costing lots of money in 1980? Then faded into relative insignificance the moment Clinton was elected? Then abruptly became too expensive again in 2000? That's quite a theory.

..of course, if you subtracted all military spending from the budget, Bush would also "have a surplus."

Saying "deficits aren't so bad" is almost plausible; sort of wrong, but at least true in some small part. Claiming that the massive deficit doesn't exist, or denying that it has anything to do with tax cuts and increases in discretional spending, is just stupid.
posted by sfenders at 5:41 PM on September 30, 2004


by every measure, the economy, these days is good, or very good; about as good as it was 7-9 years ago.

No.

Um, no.

7-9 years ago I had headhunters banging down my door. Literally calling me at work to see if I wanted to go work somewhere else.

I haven't had a positive response to a resume for two years (and haven't had one lead to a job for 3-4).
posted by weston at 6:58 PM on September 30, 2004


I'm really irritated by the whole "oh well, I guess I'll vote for Kerry" attitude, as if Kerry is the one people are straining to justify voting for. I think a lot of the people touting the "I want to vote for Kerry, but I'm so unmotivated by him" line are actually Republicans having issues with Bush.

Guess what cowboy...there are a lot of third party candidates out there and the point of voting isn't to win; it's to be heard.

I agree that "a lot" are Republicans, but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry needs to win their vote. And if/when Kerry loses, a bunch of you will eat your words regarding Kerry's electability, which is the point. The Democrats did not choose their strongest candidate; they chose the most electable.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2004


the point of voting isn't to win; it's to be heard.

No, the point of voting is to get the best possible leadership for your country. Presently, no third party candidates can be classified as possibly becoming that leader.
posted by NortonDC at 7:48 PM on September 30, 2004


« Older Auntie references her relatives   |   Psst ... content is king ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments