Regadless, it's still an important issue to discuss, for reasons too numerous to enumerate here.
I've now watched the debates (Thanks Anisa for taping them for us) with baited breath because I was hoping to learn something which would resolve my own indecision.
I've seen Michael Moore's movie, and taken them with the due grain of salt. I've researched the issues presented there, and many other places, and found them to be, in aggragate, a lot of arm-waving; Look at what this hands doing, don't look at what's really up my sleeve.
I've ruled out Bush for more reasons than I care to list.
I've ridden the fence up until now on weather to choose what I see as the lesser of two evils (Kerry) or throwing my vote away on a third-party, but have come to the conclusion that in fact he is the evil of two lessers, not the other way around.
I've educated myself on this whole electoral college debate, and have a very detailed understanding of the dynamics that really decide the direction which they will ultimately take, which can in fact be to go against the voiced will of the people. I see why we have two parties: Because in a winner-takes-all-with-the-majority voting system, people can literally buy their way into a canidates agenda by threatening to run against them. Kerry could buy Nader's support by getting some Nader issues on his agenda, or promising him Labor Secretary. And we know how much that's worth to Kerry: 1% of the vote (Nader's current standing in the polls). And if you think 1% isn't that much, you must not have been paying attention 4 years ago.
The conclusion I've come to is this: Bush supporters really do believe that Bush could do a better job. Kerry supporters really do believe that Kerry could do a better job. But nither of them are making honest arguments.
Bush is still finding new ways to justify his illegal war from which he and his have made billions (Halliburton). The half-truth he insists on is that his intelligence at the time we're saying that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction or at least plans and material to make them. The truth is the evidence did point at a weapons program (every developed country has one), but all of his nuclear experts were saying 'there's no way he could make nuclear weapons with that stuff'. But because it was profitable to do so, Bush ignored that advice, choosing to only hear what he wanted to hear, which is that he had an opertunity to go to war, and make a lot of money in the process. He used the atmosphere of fear, uncertianty, and doubt to galvanize the people against a phantom threat, alienating all of our friends in the UN, making us the laughing stock of the world. Then the reality set in, and his approval ratings plummeted. So to bolster his case, he's literally finding reasons to justify it. I got a little common sense for thoes who think this is a worthwhile endevor: You don't go searching for and inventing reasons to go to war AFTER you've started the war. Meanwhile he's driven America into a 7.2 trillion dollar deficit, we're trapped in a war which realistically has no end and will go on in perpetuality, and he has the nerve to say, "I'm very happy with where we are."
Meanwhile Kerry, who's record is weak to begin with (unless you count his three purple hearts), has based his whole campaign around the concept of 'fixing' the mistakes the Bush administration has made. This, while nobel in theory, results in nothing but a smear-based strategy filled with more half-truths. Durring the debate he made the statement that if Bush we're re-elected, Americans would find themselves being sucked into the millitary though a draft. He did this because the issue hits home with the college students and mothers and fathers of teenagers, and he'll probablly win their vote because of it. But when you actually look just beneath the surface, you find that it's not true; Bush isn't for the draft. Congress isn't for the draft. The Pentagon isn't for the draft. No one wants the draft. Why, you ask? Because as it turns out a voulentarry armed-forces program is much more effect. And everyone knows this. But it didn't stop Kerry from using it as a tool to leverage people's fears against Bush. The real irony is it was the fear of terrorism and insecurity that Bush used to start the war, and it's the same fear of insecurity that Kerry uses to attack Bush with.
And if any of these things come as news to you and you plan on voting, I'de put forth that you're doing yourself and your country a disservice by making an uninformed decision, and that you owe it to yourself, your children, and your grandchildren to not fuck up something so important by casting your vote without knowing all the facts. And anyone too short-sighted to say something stupid like "I don't have kids and don't plan on having any." as a retort needs to get their head out of their ass.
If you actually are aware of these things, and you've made your decision, and you can still sleep at night, then more power to you.
Somehow, I suspect, the majority of the people will fall into the former category. And really thats a shame.
If information is power, then ignorance is paralysis. Make sure your not paralyzed when you vote.
-Kevlar
