Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The Three Wise Guys - Election 2004 Revisited
"How did the cat get so fat?
Why does the family die?
Do you care why?
Cause there hasn't been a sign
Of anything gettin' better in the ghetto
People's fed up
But when they get up
You point your fuckin' finger
You racist, you bigot
But that's not the problem
Now is it?
It's all about the money
Political power is takin
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the war from the White House
And I wonder...
How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?" ~ "Perfect Government" - NOFX
George W. Bush. Howard Dean. Dick Gephardt.
I believe I asked this question before on here recently: Who do I vote for?
A buddy of mine asked no one in particular this question recently, "Which one is the lesser of the three evils"?
To which I gave this answer. Of the three, I'd have to say that Gephardt is the least of the three evils, in that he's the proverbial "middle man" between Bush and Dean; with his 26 years in Congress, Gephardt has much more experience at the national government level than both Bush and Dean combined. And if I had to, I'd probably end up voting for him over Bush, just for the simple fact that the Bush Administration is getting to be too damned expensive for the average working joe. Don't get me wrong now, I fully supported the Dubya Administration's policies regarding Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, and I still do. But now that those policies are firmly established in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Government, it's time for Dubya and Co. to step down and let another more "domestically oriented" administration take up the reins.
As for Howard Dean, I agree with his fellow Vermonters; he simply does not have the experience or the know-how to run the entire country. Neither did Bush prior to 2001, but Bush had surrounded himself with an old guard of experienced government heads, not to mention he had his daddy's influence to guide him. Howard Dean will not have as many friends in high places that Bush and Gephardt have in the event that he were to ever become President. Plus, I've grown suspect of his skirting of the issues when faced with confrontation by his fellow Democratic candidates. His most recent embarrassment was when Al Sharpton confronted him the other night about racial equality within his governing cabinet in Vermont. It was a simple question that had a very simple answer (Vermont's population is roughly 96% white according to the 2000 Census), but Howard Dean couldn't seem to answer it, and instead attempted to avoid the question even while Sharpton repeatedly pressed him on it. There have been other instances where Dean didn't seem too certain of his own political agenda, and it's become increasingly clear that Dean is only telling people what they want to hear. While that could describe pretty much every other presidential candidate, you can read Howard Dean like a book. He's already in way over his head. His only saving grace at this point in time is that he successfully manipulated the sheep into believing his every word. It's only a matter of time though, I believe, when he'll become unable to keep his own sheep's clothing on his back, and everyone will see the incompetent wolf that lies underneath.
Gephardt would be who I would prefer to vote for of those Three Evils.
The guy who I will probably end up voting for will be either Wesley Clark or Dennis Kucinich. If peace in Iraq is to ever happen, Clark would be the best candidate for the job. Former NATO generals have a tendency to know how to properly utilize the military. My only problem with Wesley Clark is that he doesn't appear to have much of a domestic policy agenda in place. Foreign policy is all well and good, but without a sound domestic policy in place, our foreign affairs will ultimately break this country. Too many of our jobs and money are being sent overseas, and if there is any hope for a full economic rebound in this country, attention must be paid to enriching the wealth and health of the U.S. economy and job market.
As for Dennis Kucinich, the one thing that caught my attention with this guy the most was that out of all the presidential candidates, Kucinich is the only one that voiced his opposition of the War On Drugs and made it a part of his political agenda. He didn't come right out and try to sell it to the voters, instead he quietly put it on his website. It might sound silly, but not making it a selling point to the voters shows me that it is something matter-of-fact that he intends on actually doing. If not 100%, then at least the possibility of ending the War On Drugs is more than we can say for the other presidential candidates, who appear to have not even paid the subject so much as a passing glance. For all of you civil rights advocates out there, forget the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is nothing compared to the 20 year War On Drugs in terms of violating American civil liberties in this country. Statistically, this country is no better off than before Reagan began his administration's War On Drugs policy back in the '80s in terms of drug usage in this country. Drug users are treated the same as violent criminals in our criminal justice system, and often receive harsher sentences than criminals who are convicted of assault charges or manslaughter. An end to the obsolete War On Drugs, as well as legalization of certain questionable drugs like marijuana, would substantially reduce the overcrowding of our nation's prisons, not to mention save millions of tax dollars spent on putting petty dimebag-carrying criminals away in prison for minimal crimes such as dealing. It would also free up our police forces to concentrate on violent crimes, as opposed to simple drug-related felonies that are really not much worse than simple misdemeanors in many cases.
That reason alone would grant my vote to Kucinich, if he is at all serious about following through on such a campaign promise.
I also had to laugh at Kucinich's response to George W. Bush's most recent ridiculous policy regarding illegal immigrants working in this country ~ Kucinich, on the new Bush immigration policy: "You know, the Statue of Liberty, the poem at the base, didn't say, 'Give me your tired, your poor, and we'll fingerprint them, we will take their picture and then we will deport them after we're finished getting their work'" (Des Moines Register, 1/12).
You might as well ask yourself which one of the Three Stooges was your favorite, Moe, Larry, or Curly? Me? I'd probably pick Shemp.
(0) comments
Why does the family die?
Do you care why?
Cause there hasn't been a sign
Of anything gettin' better in the ghetto
People's fed up
But when they get up
You point your fuckin' finger
You racist, you bigot
But that's not the problem
Now is it?
It's all about the money
Political power is takin
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the war from the White House
And I wonder...
How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?" ~ "Perfect Government" - NOFX
George W. Bush. Howard Dean. Dick Gephardt.
I believe I asked this question before on here recently: Who do I vote for?
A buddy of mine asked no one in particular this question recently, "Which one is the lesser of the three evils"?
To which I gave this answer. Of the three, I'd have to say that Gephardt is the least of the three evils, in that he's the proverbial "middle man" between Bush and Dean; with his 26 years in Congress, Gephardt has much more experience at the national government level than both Bush and Dean combined. And if I had to, I'd probably end up voting for him over Bush, just for the simple fact that the Bush Administration is getting to be too damned expensive for the average working joe. Don't get me wrong now, I fully supported the Dubya Administration's policies regarding Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, and I still do. But now that those policies are firmly established in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Government, it's time for Dubya and Co. to step down and let another more "domestically oriented" administration take up the reins.
As for Howard Dean, I agree with his fellow Vermonters; he simply does not have the experience or the know-how to run the entire country. Neither did Bush prior to 2001, but Bush had surrounded himself with an old guard of experienced government heads, not to mention he had his daddy's influence to guide him. Howard Dean will not have as many friends in high places that Bush and Gephardt have in the event that he were to ever become President. Plus, I've grown suspect of his skirting of the issues when faced with confrontation by his fellow Democratic candidates. His most recent embarrassment was when Al Sharpton confronted him the other night about racial equality within his governing cabinet in Vermont. It was a simple question that had a very simple answer (Vermont's population is roughly 96% white according to the 2000 Census), but Howard Dean couldn't seem to answer it, and instead attempted to avoid the question even while Sharpton repeatedly pressed him on it. There have been other instances where Dean didn't seem too certain of his own political agenda, and it's become increasingly clear that Dean is only telling people what they want to hear. While that could describe pretty much every other presidential candidate, you can read Howard Dean like a book. He's already in way over his head. His only saving grace at this point in time is that he successfully manipulated the sheep into believing his every word. It's only a matter of time though, I believe, when he'll become unable to keep his own sheep's clothing on his back, and everyone will see the incompetent wolf that lies underneath.
Gephardt would be who I would prefer to vote for of those Three Evils.
The guy who I will probably end up voting for will be either Wesley Clark or Dennis Kucinich. If peace in Iraq is to ever happen, Clark would be the best candidate for the job. Former NATO generals have a tendency to know how to properly utilize the military. My only problem with Wesley Clark is that he doesn't appear to have much of a domestic policy agenda in place. Foreign policy is all well and good, but without a sound domestic policy in place, our foreign affairs will ultimately break this country. Too many of our jobs and money are being sent overseas, and if there is any hope for a full economic rebound in this country, attention must be paid to enriching the wealth and health of the U.S. economy and job market.
As for Dennis Kucinich, the one thing that caught my attention with this guy the most was that out of all the presidential candidates, Kucinich is the only one that voiced his opposition of the War On Drugs and made it a part of his political agenda. He didn't come right out and try to sell it to the voters, instead he quietly put it on his website. It might sound silly, but not making it a selling point to the voters shows me that it is something matter-of-fact that he intends on actually doing. If not 100%, then at least the possibility of ending the War On Drugs is more than we can say for the other presidential candidates, who appear to have not even paid the subject so much as a passing glance. For all of you civil rights advocates out there, forget the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is nothing compared to the 20 year War On Drugs in terms of violating American civil liberties in this country. Statistically, this country is no better off than before Reagan began his administration's War On Drugs policy back in the '80s in terms of drug usage in this country. Drug users are treated the same as violent criminals in our criminal justice system, and often receive harsher sentences than criminals who are convicted of assault charges or manslaughter. An end to the obsolete War On Drugs, as well as legalization of certain questionable drugs like marijuana, would substantially reduce the overcrowding of our nation's prisons, not to mention save millions of tax dollars spent on putting petty dimebag-carrying criminals away in prison for minimal crimes such as dealing. It would also free up our police forces to concentrate on violent crimes, as opposed to simple drug-related felonies that are really not much worse than simple misdemeanors in many cases.
That reason alone would grant my vote to Kucinich, if he is at all serious about following through on such a campaign promise.
I also had to laugh at Kucinich's response to George W. Bush's most recent ridiculous policy regarding illegal immigrants working in this country ~ Kucinich, on the new Bush immigration policy: "You know, the Statue of Liberty, the poem at the base, didn't say, 'Give me your tired, your poor, and we'll fingerprint them, we will take their picture and then we will deport them after we're finished getting their work'" (Des Moines Register, 1/12).
You might as well ask yourself which one of the Three Stooges was your favorite, Moe, Larry, or Curly? Me? I'd probably pick Shemp.
(0) comments
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button3.gif){kind=small}
