Endorsement

If you've made it this far - not only in today's issue, but in the year - it should come as no surprise that I'm supporting John Kerry for President. Our relationship is strained at best. I fell in love with him a little bit at the convention, but that was pretty much because I had to. I feel like this is an arranged marriage. I don't love my fiancee, but I don't have much to say in the matter. He's the best my parents could find. At least with their limited resources. He drove me crazy for weeks on the campaign trail, but there were times during the debates when he made me remember why I fell in love with him to begin with.

Kerry has the potential to be a bad candidate who turns out to be a good president. If nothing else, we know he'll be able to read the intelligence presented to him and make decisions on it based on his own understanding and judgment, rather than on what his advisors and his idea of Jesus tells him. I don't begrudge George Bush his faith, though I wish he would stop shaking it in my face and giving it primacy over facts. Especially since, from what I've read, his faith is based on such a limited understanding of the Bible that if he actually makes it to heaven, Jesus will shake him like a baby for his ideas. I pity anyone who has to clean up the mess George Bush has made, and I don't believe Kerry has the balls to piss off enough people by doing what needs to be done. But anything that stanches the flow of money, bad will, American lives and ecological disaster wrought by this Administration is a blessing. There is a good chance that Kerry would be another Jimmy Carter, a president so paralyzed by choices that he's unable to make any, but even that is comparable to the bad choices that define the past four years.

I feel bad for any Republicans out there who feel that have to have the same relationship with George Bush that I have with John Kerry. I understand people feeling enough of a distrust for the Democratic Party or for Kerry himself that they feel a need to stay the course. But unlike my husband, who I don't love but have to marry, your husband is abusive. I don't know how my marriage will turn out, but you're staying in a bad marriage. If I was a Republican, I'd be appalled at the effect this guy was having on my Party. This is the point my brother makes, when he points out that he should be (and is) more angry with Bush than any of us, because he voted for him. To my mind, Bush is destroying the Republican Party. Not weakening it: the Party is stronger than ever. But what does it stand for? We have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. The government has grown to the largest size ever. (The business which created the most new jobs over the past four years is the federal government.) Programs such as No Child Left Behind (not to mention the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment) take power away from the states and grant it to the federal government. George Bush runs the United States the way Ken Lay ran Enron. He is the CEO-in-Chief: he brokers no dissent from below, and fiscal responsibility is important only to the degree that it does not keep him from getting what he wants.

I don't just want this president out; I want them all out. It's hard to come up with a name in this Administration which does not cause me to shudder in disgust. Dick Cheney. Lying, self-centered, power mad plutocrat. Donald Rumsfeld. Single-minded, arrogant, buck-passing mob boss. John Ashcroft. Did I use lying already? Underhanded, secretive, entitled hatchet man. Condoleezza Rice. Did I use power mad already? Shrill, misleading, aggressive academic. The only one I like is poor Colin Powell, who has tried to exert a rational influence on this group of commandos and has been rewarded with a swift kick to the curb. He announced some time back that he would not be back for a second term, and if Bush is victorious, I hope for the sake of what's left of his reputation that he acts on that statement.

If they weren't so arrogant and smug, I might not hate them quite so much.

My view of the Bush Administration has been influenced, to no small degree, by The New Yorker. Long before re-election was even an issue, the magazine has been reporting on the actions of this White House, from lying about the environment to quashing unfavorable statistics coming out of the Departments of Labor and Commerce. It was here that I first read about the abuses of the Help America Vote Act that are currently in the news. (Abuses prompted, I might add, by John Ashcroft.) It was here that I read what's really in the Republican Party platform, and the degree to which it clashes with the moderate stance put forth by people like McCain and Giuliani. Long before the PEAD set in, the New Yorker described what the Bush tax code is really all about. So it came as no surprise when the magazine endorsed John Kerry for president. Unless, of course, you consider that this is the first time in its 80 year history that the magazine has endorsed any candidate. In a similar vein, a number of conservative magazines and newspapers - including his home town newspaper - have refused to endorse Bush, supporting either Kerry or no candidate at all. Would the American people read more. I recommend you read the New Yorker endorsement - its 4500 words of political insight will make you gnash your teeth.

I've heard a number of people say that they follow politics the way some people follow sports. This is just part of what's wrong with politics. When it becomes a question of rooting for your team over the opposing team, you've given up all responsibility for personal judgment. Not only that - the comparison is not particularly apt. I think that people who follow sports probably know more about sports than most people who follow politics know about politics. When it comes to voting for the All-Star Team, only a stupid fan would vote for everyone from their home team instead of the best players from their league. And only the most simple-minded fan would vote for the best players in their league and the worst players in the other league, hoping for an uneven match. I believe most baseball fans vote for the players they consider the best from both leagues, hoping for the most exciting game possible. People need to choose their candidates the same way they would put together their team in a fantasy sports league. Select the best players you can get, no matter what team they come from, in order to create the greatest benefit to yourself.

Isn't that the point?