We’re told to vote for John Kerry so Bush loses. Both sides are agitating the people so we’ll feel desperate about this, & think we have to pick one or the other.
Wait a moment. That’s an advertising technique. Ever notice how you really want to see that movie in the run-up to opening day, then it opens, the ads stop, & you–just don’t care? It’s emotional manipulation. So’s this. Only this isn’t about opening day ticket sales, but power over the largest military in Earth’s history.
How much difference is there between Bush & Kerry, really?[ul][li]They’re both welfare-state liberals who scorn fiscal conservatism, which puts the lie to the right-wing claim that “Democrats waste our money.”They have no fundamental differences on the “War on Terror.” Kerry could stand up & say, “This is a criminal problem, not a reason to bomb women & children,” but he voted for war.They both have the prima facie appearance of classic “empty suits”: Guys who hold the office so someone less personable can wield power.[/ul][/li]
Wait a minute! Aren’t they fraternity brothers? Are we being played?
I think the two-party leadership learned that they have to keep the public hyper-polarized, so no one dares vote for a third party, after Perot took all those votes. From their point of view, Perot stole those votes, which they need so badly. And Kerry really is “Bush Lite.”
So, if we really want “Anyone but Bush,” why not rally around Ralph Nader? Make those GOP businessmen who got him on the ballot eat that!
Oh, yeah, you think I’m fringe. I was going to vote for Kerry, lesser of two offenses & all that. Then it occurred to me that my argument to convert a Bush voter meant that Kerry could do what Bush couldn’t get the people to agree to, because he’s not “crazy idiot Bush,” he’s “calm, reasonable John Kerry.”
I’m gettin’ scared.