And the loser is…

And the loser is…
2004/07/17

The 2004 election is still months away and already my voting options for presidential candidates are bleak.

I was thinking that Kerry might be a better choice than Bush. But Kerry appears determined to prove that there is little difference between himself and his ‘rival’ candidate Bush. Just recently Kerry was hear to say that he represented conservative values. And at first, the statement confused me. It appeared as if Kerry had just given Bush further campaign fodder to be lobbed at the voting public in the form of television commercials.

Boy was I wrong about that. Kerry did more than give Bush ammunition for his campaign commercials. Kerry appears to be foregoing the election by running his campaign into the ground in an effort to show that he too is capable of the same confrontational attitude that has helped lead us to this current moment in history.

In establishing the candidates ‘differences’ Kerry announced that he supports the wall that Israel is constructing between itself and the Palestinians by condemning the decision of the World Court. Then a few days later Kerry revealed to the press that he supports the preemptive doctrine of the Bush administration. Is this what the “Massachusetts liberal” running for president meant by representing conservative values?

I was under the (false?) impression that debates would establish differences between the candidates and their positions. At this rate the three debates between Kerry and Bush should look like a ‘yes man’ convention where the same policy positions are repeated ad infinitum for the viewing audience. I can hear it now, “Well Jim (Lehrer) as you can see, Mr. _____ (insert Kerry or Bush) and myself are much in agreement on this issue.”

As my fears grow exponentially as November 2nd approaches I am running out of options. If I vote for Bush I re-elect Bush. If I vote for Kerry I re-elect Bush. Aaaauuuggghhh! What does one without the reassuring voice of party affiliation do now?

Let’s see, there is Ralph Nader. He has had a fine career of public service fighting against corporate giants like Ford Automotive. He has long been a thorn in the side of government largess. He is a maverick; he is free of the stain of party politics…oops! He was a maverick; he was free of the stain of party politics.

Nader says that voting for him is not a vote for George W. Bush. I disagree with his assessment. It has been reported that Nader is receiving campaign donations from individuals that are know supporters of Bush. Now it is his right to take donations from whomever he wishes. But when you take money from individuals who are making donations with the explicit goal of getting you on the ballot so you can take votes away from the president’s main ‘rival’ (such as they are) to ensure his re-election; a vote for Nader is also a vote to re-elect Bush.

It is rather disturbing that Nader would be in such a desperate position that he would knowingly take money from ‘supporters’ whose politics are so divergent from his. I suppose this is an inevitable reality of politics when one can’t get on the ballot. After further consideration, he too isn’t a viable option.

There is the Libertarian party. Their convention was lively with debate! I just happened to watch some of it on C-SPAN. I have a cursory knowledge of some of their main issues. I don’t know the name of the man they nominated for president but that can change. It isn’t like I haven’t voted for a long-shot third party candidate before.

Then there is the Green party. Here again I possess cursory knowledge of the party. I have heard that the Greens haven’t endorsed Nader. But that is all I know when it comes to the Greens and their support for a 2004 presidential candidate. Between the Libertarians and the Greens it is clear that a vote for either party is not a vote to re-elect Bush.

I suppose that I could vote for Bush but he isn’t a viable option. I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning. It is in this moment that I finally discovered and came to understand the true essence of voter apathy. I would hate to sit out by not voting. But when the pickings are slim (and let’s not be fooled, the pickings are slim) these are the candidates we are left to chose from.