Who’s got your vote?
With presidential candidates campaigning from state to state and 2008 now here and just waiting for the countdown to the presidential elections, we can thank George W. Bush for rousing the political awareness of an entire nation of people who, regardless of party lines, tend to share the same sentiment: we can’t let this happen again. Everyone has their key issues that make particular candidates more appealing; some vote based on stances on gay rights, others on women’s rights and abortion, others on welfare, healthcare, childcare, education, taxation, military spending…the list goes on. Most look for a candidate with a balance of values that most closely reflect their own personal beliefs on multiple issues, and will choose the candidate who’s the closest fit without being a polar opposite on any one key issue. It’s often a “lesser of two evils” situation.
That’s where I find myself today: seeking the lesser of not two, but multiple evils. Although many potential candidates have drawn massive unconditional support from members of their respective parties, I find myself rather reserved. Although I’d love to vote Independent or some other third party, the unfortunate truth is that if you don’t vote for one of the Big Two, your vote will do little to determine the future of this country’s leadership. If I want to choose a candidate that I can be fairly sure is a supporter of gay rights so I can ignore that and move on to focus on their stances on other key issues, I’m pretty much stuck with the Democratic party.
I’m not happy with that.
Nor am I happy with the Republican party. In this case, struggling to choose the lesser of two evils leaves me wholly undecided, because I can’t think of a single Republican or Democratic candidate that I honestly think could do the job. They’re either starry-eyed boyscouts, confused flip-floppers, short-sighted idealists, militant bigots, religious zealots, shady sleazes, outright liars, or just plain batsh*t crazy - or any combination. Not one of them inspires confidence as a leader; not one of them leads me to believe that he or she would have the slightest idea of where to begin unraveling the tangle that the last eight years have made of this nation and its affairs while maintaining the outward appearance of strength required in dealing with our foreign allies and enemies.
One thing I can say about G.W.: he’s one crazy mother f***er, and most would think twice about screwing with him because he’s just nuts enough to push that big red button. His “don’t mess with Texas” attitude has pretty much blanketed the U.S., and outside influences are rightfully wary of provoking him. Hell, I’m wary of provoking him. I’m a little amazed that we made it this far through his terms without him declaring a religious war on home soil.
The problem is that a new candidate will have to fill the void left by his aggression with diplomacy, strength, and confidence. With the current global climate, the United States cannot afford a leader who gives the illusion of being weak, ready to capitulate and incapable of dealing with crisis or hostility. Neither can we afford another diplomatic disaster like W, both in domestic and foreign issues. Politically, we’re wounded and limping. We need not only a nurturer, but a protector.
Unless someone pulls one hell of a hat trick and surprises everyone, I doubt we’ll find that in the current list of Big Two potentials.
But I refuse to skip the vote, so I’ll be stuck picking someone. I’ll weigh my options, their histories, and their campaigns when the finals come around and the choices have narrowed down, and who knows - I may even end up voting Republican, if I can swallow my gorge. Voting Democrat won’t be much easier. I normally don’t let my sexuality sway my vote, but in this case I may have to lean on that in forcing myself to choose a candidate.
It’s rather sad that at this point, it hardly matters. No matter which way we vote, we’re screwed.
With apologies to international readers for the U.S.-centric nature of this post: who do you think would do the best job as the United States’ next president? Even if you aren’t old enough to vote, or hell, even if you’re from another country but still have an interest in U.S. affairs…if you could vote for the president of the United States right now, who would you vote for, and why?
[Complete List of 2008 Potentials]
2008 presidential election, presidential candidates, democratic party, republican party
Listen to DR Streaming Radio
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Don’t worry- I think us non-US readers know where you’re coming from. I don’t see anything inspiring to vote for in the next UK elections, myself.
We’ve got “moar anti terror measures naow plz” idiots in Labour (which is no longer a party of the workers and is as bad as the conservative party)
We’ve got the Liberal Democrats, a party I’d love to vote for if it weren’t for the fact they’re too fractured and busy infighting to be effective.
And then we’ve got the Conservatives, who despite claiming to have many makeovers and offering many policies which appeal greatly to me, are damn certain to be liars and frauds.
So, yeah. The UK lot understand your elections issues. And I can’t say any of your candidates are too inspiring either.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
I’m a registered Republican, but the only candidate who doesn’t have my complete and utter contempt is Barack Obama. I want an intelligent and well-educated president, and one who is proud of that. My theory is, he hasn’t been in the political machine long enough yet to have had his integrity destroyed.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Do I need to get the black cape and the light saber out and make the speech about coming to the Dark Side, Adri? …good, because I’m not 100% I can vote for a Republican, either. If the Democrats could field a candidate that actually supported gay rights, without the side-stepping and political talk, maybe I would. Not to say I’m leaving the party Lincoln built, but the fact that anyone who has even one or two good qualities has about as much of a chance of gaining the nomination as I do leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I agree on the type of president needed, though. We need another calming presence in the White House, one that looks tough enough to keep the dogs at bay in the world stage, but kind enough to welcome our friends back into the fold (*shudder*, even the French). One man really comes to mind as “that type” of president: Gerald Ford. The campy, Midwestern president, built like the linebacker he once was, picked up the pieces after the Watergate fiasco, and helped lead people back to trusting their government. We need the president that looks and acts like the stoic big brother we all wish we had, the one we wanted to run to when something scared us or upset us so he could make us feel better. More importantly, he needs to be there because he loves the idea of serving his country, not because he wants to be president.
That’s not to say the “communicator” type, a la Regan, wouldn’t be a great president for this day and age. Hell, another one like Clinton would probably be better than any candidate from either party (and no, Hillary does not equal Bill, thank you). But I still think we need another Midwestern president with a solid understanding of the real world and a good, even temper to fix things.
But, I’ll probably still vote for Ron Paul.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I won’t give a damn about the Republican candidates until the primaries are over; too much effort getting agitated over people I can’t even vote on.
As for the Democrats? We’ve got a huddle of scared sheep, even Obama, the “fresh face.” Based on my (incredibly limited) understanding of human nature, I’m inclined to believe that he’s more likely to snap out of it than, say, Hillary, who’s been in the bunker for what feels like forever. But I’ve been wrong before.
Yet despite all my griping, I’d rather have a weak president than an outright bastard, so I’ll probably be leaning Democrat in the elections. What I have heard from the Republicans has not been very encouraging.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I have to agree with Del. The only candidate I can picture doing even a reasonable job is Obama. As a New Yorker and Bill Clinton supporter, I’m horrified by the idea of good ole Hil taking the office. I know the thought is that taking her on is like getting Bill again, but we have no idea how that would actually work. As a woman, I would love to see a competent female president, but I don’t think she’s it. Where’s Golda Meir when you need her?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I don’t really start paying attention until I have only two to choose from. However, considering the fact that I am dead-set against the Republican party–even more so than usual–I’ll probably end up either wasting a vote on an idependent or the Democratic candidate. I can’t see how international opinion of America can get any worse than what Bush has made it, especially after the Democratic party allowed Bush to cry wolf and thus gain a second term of presidency. I was taking election surveys at the time, and the vast majority of the STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN voters told me they were going to vote for the Democratic candidate.
Personally, I hope Obama gets the vote in the primary. I’m a little frightened of Hillary, because I really don’t think having her in would be anything at all like having her hubby. Yes, I’d like to see a competent female president, and I think she would be–to an extent. She still frightens the hell out of me, though, much as I admire her for taking her marriage vows seriously (I hope she kneed Bill where it hurts at some point–and, yes, I believe that marriage should happen once, except in cases of abuse or widowhood).
Not that my vote for the Democrat–whomever he or she is–will count much here in Utah. The vast majority of Mormons are Republicans, and add in all those not Mormon, and it’s a miracle anybody NOT Republican gets voted into office here, never mind a majority Democratic vote in any Presidential elections.
At this point, I’m feeling pretty hopeless about the whole situation. On the whole, I think if I could afford to move internationally, I’d go to Norway. More parties to choose from, for one, and plenty of people with common sense in the government.
Oh, and Adri? I agree with you on the type of President we need.
I doubt very much that the Republican party could put forth such a candidate, and I’m afraid the Democratic candidates–even Obama–won’t be the best, but at least the Democrat would try harder. After all, he or she would have to clean up the horrendous mess Bush has made.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
My choices are ones who don’t stand a chance in hell. Kucinich is my number one little guy, Gravel a close second. They’re the only ones that haven’t disappointed on some level. Of the top 3, though, I’m leaning toward Obama. I think Hillary will take it in the end (bad choice of words, my bad), but any one of them would be better than not only the atrocity of the administration we have now, but undoubtedly far better than anyone running for the red team.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 am
I’m voting Nobody, because Nobody Cares.
Puns aside, with choices like this, it’s hard not to vote Nobody. Hilary’s too right-wing for me, Obama’s voted for some truly stupid things (like the suspension of habeas corpus), and the Republicans are having an all-out war amongst each other to see who can be the most anti-gay anti-immigrant candidate.
Maybe I’ll vote Green Party. I really don’t believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, and I really would rather vote for nobody than profess my support for someone I disagree with.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 am
Is there no one else?
/quote
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
It seems that politics the world over is up the proverbial creek and looking more short on paddles by the minute. The UK system has managed to produce parties which strive to be more ineffectual than ever before, a “three party” system with no chance of more than two possible outcomes and a collection of politicians who rely almost entirely on spin over actual policy. And the really depressing thing is that hardly anyone has noticed.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
[...] Sweet, no. by Adrien-Luc Sanders For decades, the Iowa caucus has been a significant indicator of which potential candidate would be nominated to run on each party platform in the U.S. presidential race. While the caucus [...]
January 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
[...] other news, yesterday was caucus day. You know, that political thingy in Iowa where all the presidential candidates get together and try to win over the Iowinians or something. And until I actually read something [...]
January 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
After carefully reading up on each candidate’s political views (on wikipedia, of course) I can’t fully endorse any of the candidates. But it seems like we’re all on the same page there.
One big thing that sways me is that most of the Democrats have plans for universal health care, which is something I think this country NEEDS. And I like Obama and Edwards’ plans better than Clinton’s, which is fine since I think she’d have little to no chance at winning if she gets the nod anyway.
The other thing I really tend to care about is this whole prayer/teaching creationism in public schools shenanigans. THAT is insanity to the point of me thinking about leaving the country if it were to happen - although if Huckabee (or as a friend likes to call him after the Iowa caucus, “What the Fuckabee?!”) gets the Republican nod then maybe the Democratic candidate will have a better chance at winning, and then at least all the poor people in America might be slightly less screwed when it comes to health care.
And as a side note (which has rapidly become longer than the rest of this put together, haha), I do like the idea of civil unions if a Democrat wins, even though it reeks of “separate but equal” which as we all know didn’t work out so well last time. Course I live in the great state of Massachusetts, which luckily has come to its senses. To avoid the separate-but-equal thing (not to mention the separation of church and state, although it looks like Huckabee has no problem completely ignoring that) I think we should just do away with government-sanctioned “marriage” and make them ALL civil unions - then if you want to go to a church and get “married” that’s up to the church to decide whether they’ll marry you or not, but not the government.