Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lisarea
So, pragmatically, what are the real choices? In 2004, your choices are a sitting president in his lame duck term, or the other guy. Said president has already led us to war. Said president has said that God speaks to him. So, is he actually hearing voices, or is that just a set up for something? Which explanation is less horrifying? I can't decide. He has a completely non-viable VP, so not only would he, in his second term, not be concerned about his own reelection, but he wouldn't even be concerned with promoting his VP. He will literally have nothing to lose.
The other guy, though. The other guy, if nothing else, knows that his success hinges largely on a grumbling consensus among those who want Bush out of office. He knows who his constituents are, and for the most part, they don't really support him. Kerry's demographic is a very different one from Bush's. Kerry's demographic doesn't think he's divinely appointed. Kerry's demographic wanted to vote for Dean and Kucinich and Nader and maybe McCain. Kerry was picked as a viable candidate, nothing more. He was chosen because he can appeal to the demographics that need appealing to. He's a politician. He's a figurehead, a spokesmodel, and he was chosen to be a viable candidate to overthrow Bush. If he's elected, he'll watch his step because his constituency will be watching his step--every one--and if he wants a second term, or if he wants to pass the torch to Edwards at some point, he'll probably at least make some effort not to piss off the people who put him in office.
|
Eloquently put. This, to my mind, is one of the most important reasons to vote Kerry in 2004. He has much more to lose by misbehaving in office.
Honestly, my reasons for voting Kerry are more strategic than they are indicative of any real approval of Kerry himself. The Republicans and their allies, in the last 25 years or so, have put together a far more effective effective political machine than the Democrats have. Right now, they control all three branches of the federal government, and they're ruthless when it comes to holding onto power. Hell, look at the way they spent eight years hounding Clinton, probably the most conservative Democratic president in history. I'm not saying that the Democrats wouldn't like to do the same thing, given the chance, but they're not organized for it. At this point, they need all the help they can get, which is why, reluctantly, I've come to consider myself a Democrat. If I'm going to live in a nation where those who govern are inevitably drawn from just two parties (and, barring Constituional changes to the way we elect or leaders, or my becoming a mail order husband for some lonely woman somewhere in Europe, I am going to live in such a nation), even if those two parties are nearly indistinguishable on many key issues that matter to me, then I'm going to be damned sure that the party playing the role of Opposition is powerful enough to do so. I think the Republicans have become powerful enough that they need to be knocked down a few notches so I'm going to hold my nose and throw my lot in with the Democrats.
Now, one good thing, to my mind, about American politics in the last year or so is the way that, however sincere they are about it, the Democrats have had to reacquaint themselves with their base demographics and, in part, that means that things like Edwards' "Two Americas" speech have brought progressive economics and the real class warfare being waged against the working classes back into the public discourse. This is a vital opportunity, IMO, for those of us who have criticized the Democrats all along for being Republicans-Lite to keep these things in the public discourse, to remind our leaders of all the pretty things they said while they were running for office in 2004, to remind them that they lost much of America once by refusing to take a stand against the very wealthy on economic issues amnd can't afford to do so again, and to hold them to it. As lisarea said, most of Kerry's base wanted to vote for someone else, but they're willing to play ball in order to dethrone Bush. Kerry needs to be reminded of that, and that they're all very willing to dump his Frankenstein-looking ass for someone whose values are more in line with their own once the danger of a second Bush term has passed.
Oh, finally, I agree with LS and vm...abortion rights is not a dead issue, as it should be. Look at the stealth legisltaion that's been passed over the last couple of years to lay the groundwork for defining a fetus as an individual with rights (I'm too lazy to go look it up right now, but let me know if you don't know what I'm talking about and I will).