(stop groaning... you knew this was comming..)
So, the debates are finally over and elections are less than 3 weeks away. I have to admit, I am ready for this to be over! The arguing, the mudslinging, the on-campus haggling between the College Republicans and College Democrats. Seriously, I’ve had a growing headache for the past 2 months. Granted, I am extremely pleased to see so many students involved in the political process, but more often than not I’m finding that it is blind loyalty, and not research, that is leading students to decide who to vote for, and that’s just sad. If I hear the argument that “The Christians support Bush” one more time, I seriously think I will puke.
Many of you know how torn I am over this election... at times the answer seems so simple, but most of the time I find myself hating the both of them. So it comes to this... “Who is the lesser of two evils?” And I’m not sure that I have an answer to that. But in an attempt to explain myself to the masses, I offer the following thoughts...
...Yes,Kerry is prone to change his mind, and that’s dangerous, but on the other hand, Bush never changes his mind, and that’s dangerous too. Which is worse? It depends on how you look at it... as a leader, I want someone who is dependable, and yes, firm.. but I also want someone who is flexible, and willing to change direction if it is in the best interest of the people.
...I agree with Kerry in that I don’t think we can force our articles of faith on others.. I believe that to do so would go against everything the constitution says. Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, and it seems that we have forgotten that lately. But on the other hand... I believe that our sociology reflects our theology, and if that is the truth, then we find ourselves at a bit of a crossroads... for example, the gay marriage issue... personally, I am against it. I believe that it is wrong... but how can I legally justify denying them rights that are free to everyone else? I am all for preserving the sanctity of marriage, but I am against denying rights to a specific group of American citizens. (in my opinion, the solution to this problem is simple... come up with a new “term” for gay marriage... the equivalent of “marriage” with all of the benefits, but with a different name.. after all, at the end of the day, I have to wonder, is this just a linguistics argument?)
...Again, I agree with Kerry in that I think the role of a religious President is not to be a “Christian or Catholic President” but to be a President who happens to be Christian or Catholic. Call me crazy, but I think this relates directly to my post over the “Christian Industry” (to the right click on "Religiously Speaking..." to read more..) Yes, if our faith is “active” or “relevant” in our lives, then it should be apparent in all we do... but I get hesitant when I hear Christians label themselves, especially in politics. I mean, come on! At the end of the day, your legislation and the policies that you fund and support should give me an idea of where you stand. (but then again... with separation of church and state, and with the desire to not “legislate” our beliefs on others... sometimes the lines are blurry)
...I’ll just say it now, because I know someone will bring it up. Yes, I disagree with Kerry over his statement that homosexuality is not a choice. In other words, yes, I believe that homosexuality is a choice. I know I might be making some enemies by saying this, but honestly, you shouldn’t be surprised. I could go on here, but I think I will abstain for now...
...Monetarily speaking, I think that Bush is a little bit more realistic in how we go about funding everything. Let’s be honest, who is Kerry fooling? There is no way he can fund all of his initiatives without increasing the taxes. And he has promised not to raise taxes for those of us making less than $200,000? That’s just retarded. That’s more than half of America! Heaven help the wealthy, cause by the time they pay their taxes, they’ll be making less than the rest of us! And I’ll be honest, I don’t think it’s fair to make one tax bracket responsible for the rest of us. I don’t think there should be tax brackets at all. I think we should establish a percentage tax. Where everyone pays the same percentage to taxes, regardless of what you make.. that way, it’s based on your income, but at the end of the day you’re paying the same percentage as everyone else, even though the amount would of course be different. and no one can complain about being “overtaxed”
...As for where the money will be spent, I have to agree with Kerry. (big surprise) His initiatives are more in tune with what I would like to see happen. I think that healthcare is a basic right, and not a privilege, and that we should treat it as such. We are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer government-based healthcare to its citizens. Yes, I know that this would mean a tax increase, a very very big one. But if we could only rearrange the money we already have, then perhaps this could be a possibility. (After-all, we’re spending over $52 million a day on the war in Iraq.) Initiative-wise, I’m for Kerry... Money-wise I’m for Bush..
.. Wait, did I just mention Iraq? Wow, let me just tell you that I am sick of hearing that argument. Seriously, Iraq.. our nations new 4-letter word. Here’s my opinion in a nutshell.. we went into Iraq because we believed that there were WMD there. Even Kerry voted for that move. Then, low and behold, still no WMD.. turns out, we were misled. Oops. So should we not have gone at all, even though at the time we were “certain” that there was something going on? I think we did the right thing by going in.. i mean, when I was in High School and we had bomb threats, everyone had to leave. This happened about 6 times, and turns out that there never were any bombs, but you have to take those kinds of things seriously. Anyhow, I digress.. so we did the right thing by acting on the information that we had (that we assumed was true), but then we find out that we were misled.. so do we pull out? Hmm, I say no.. I say, let’s finish what we started, but let’s be quick about it. It kills me to hear all these people whining about how we weren’t supposed to go, and how we need to get out ASAP and blah blah blah. What did they expect us to do? Ignore the initial intelligence reports? And now what? They just expect us to drop everything and come home, when democracy is close to being established. We need to be thorough.. and we need to support our troops. Yeah, the whole situation is icky and contestable.. and yeah, it’s our own fault that things got so screwed up in the first place. But can we focus on some of the positive aspects that have come out of this? 1. Democracy is being established in a country that has been war-torn for decades. (the number of humanitarian benefits that have come out of this should be enough to satisfy people!) 2. Umm Sadam is out of power.. That being said, I don’t think this “mistake” turned out as bad as it could have. (side note.. yes I still consider myself a pacifist, I’d take negotiations over war anytime, any day.. but considering our options at the time... ) Bottom line, it’s stupid to argue whether we should have gone, or whether we should be there. We went. We’re there. Now let’s wrap things up, there are other things going on... believe it or not, terror does exist in many forms, and it is going on in other places... (but that’s a whole other post...)
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s true.. indeed, ignorance is bliss. I mean, if I didn’t advocate for some specific things, then maybe I wouldn’t be entitled to care. But I do care, and that presents a problem for me. So, I know you’re all wondering... where does she stand?
First let me say that I hate answering that question because generally people have a formed opinion of you, and they expect you to vote a certain way... and I hate feeling as though I am being judged based on who I am voting for, especially in an election like this one, where I am really not a fan of either candidate...
So all that to say this: I will be honest, my gut says Bush. I don’t know what it is, but Kerry rubs me the wrong way. (yeah yeah, bush does too..but it’s different) I just see Bush as more genuine, and despite the fact that the Republican party manipulates the whole “christian right,” I do think that Bush makes his decisions based on some form of principle; whereas with Kerry I constantly feel as though I’m being “played,” Iand that he’s simply telling each group of people what they want to hear.
On another note, I have to question whether or not we are in a good place to bring in a new leader... let’s face it, we’re overextended, we’re in the middle of about 4 different campaigns (that we know of) and it would take Kerry twice as long to accomplish his goals because most of them involve moving us in a completely new direction... then there is the whole Supreme Court Justice issue.. for the first time ever, the next Supreme Court Judge that is chosen, is appointed for life... and undoubtedly the next President will have to choose at least one Supreme Court Justice before his term is up.. in essence, this means that whoever is elected next will be affecting our nations history for the next 40 years. Scary thought.
I still can’t believe that these are my choices. The thought depresses me. Everytime I think about voting for Bush, I get a little nauseated. I see a better economy for America as a whole.. but I also envision Super Wal-Marts erupting all over the place and globilization worsening. When I think of electing Kerry, I envision several great initiatives materializing, but I also forsee very small paychecks and a national debt that my great-great-grandchildren will be paying off...
Of all the people in America, this is what I have to work with? A multi-millionaire who made his dough in oil and is uncomfortably close to the powers that be at ClearChannel, and a billionaire who made his dough through marriage and appears to be making a lot of “unkeepable” promises... wow...tough choices...
(and don’t even get me started on their running-mates... geez...)
Ladies and gentlemen... choose your poison.
3 comments:
Yeah there was a lot more that I could have added, but seeing as how the post was HUGE already.. I decided to stick with the big annoying issues that have already been beaten to death.
In regards to the vaccines, in Bush's defense, he said that the "young" should abstain from getting flu shots, and not that children shouldn't. By young I think he meant the 20-40 crowd. Because he did say that those who are most suseptible (yeah, I know it's spelled wrong) should take the vaccine. And obviously those who are most suseptibe would be young children and the elderly. (i'm tallking in terms of death here... of course we all get the flu, but most likely we won't die from it..)
Personally I thought that question was stupid.. it had some validity, yes.. but still..
And don't get me started on affirmative action....
i just wanted to thank you for that blog; it made a lot of sense to me. It's nice to know that you are keeping an open mind about things and that you are not just basing the whole election based on your position on war which a lot of people have been.
Thanks... yeah I'm basically tired of the whole process at this point. If I see one more bumper sticker I'm gonna scream! Ahh.. oh, and I took several online polls.. and they all put me at over 60% for Kerry....hmm decisions decisions..
Post a Comment