Despite the initially wide field of Democratic Candidates, I feel my final, realistic options are poor at best. If I had to choose today, I would be holding my nose as I pull the lever. I am unusual in this opinion? Ralph Nader is running to "provide an alternative", but that seems like the greater of three evils. Is this the best America has to offer?

Just read an article where Bill Maher says he feels like a "spoiled brat" for voting for Nader in 2000. He said some other countries can only dream of having the ability to choose between the lesser of two evils. Im guessing hes not voting Nader again.

It does not thrill me that Kerry is part of the Yale Skull and Bonesmen. But I do believe that he is the only one at this point who is able to dethrone Bush and his handlers.

Nader will never become President, despite his good qualities. It seems to me that in order to have a viable third party efforts would have to be made now, or even a few months ago, to plan for a 2008 candidacy.

The system is hurting when only the very rich and influential have a hope of becoming President. Of course, this country was founded and led by aristocrats who did not want to pay taxes to England and wanted self-rule. So the system was probably flawed from the beginning.

Until enough people become disgruntled enough to call for reform of our political system en masse and refuse to be dismissed out of hand by the complacent members of our society, the system will remain the same.

In the meantime, I want Americans out of this Iraq mess and the government out of our business. Corporate welfare while companies have accounts set up offshore and are sending jobs overseas is reprehensible, as is allowing corporations to pollute our land, air and water with impunity.

Senator John Kerry might well represent an improvement in many of these areas, so I will be voting for him.

I like the Maher quote. I voted "lesser of two evils" but I don't really mean that as a bad thing. I actually don't have anything against John Kerry, I just think that if you have very specific opinions on many political issues, you're only going to completely love one candidate: yourself. I think the choices we end up with do represent most Americans that are likely to ever turn up on election day, and if anyone disagrees, they should organize instead of complaining. I think it's just people loving the freedom to whine without realizing the irony of having that freedom.

If the libertarians, or any other 3rd party conservative group could stand toe-to-toe with the green party, I might vote for Nader. But it seems that most of the LP would rather win with a republican than lose with a libertarian.

If that conservative alternative did come out, I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat. The ultra-conservatives and liberals wouldn't waste their votes on their second best choice, leaving balance between the republicans and democrats.

Otherwise, Nader just throws votes away for the democrats while all the LP's (and ultra-conservatives) vote for Bush.

*Note: Yes, I realize that Nader isn't running with the Green Party this time. However, I believe that it is a safe assumption that the vast majority of his votes come from "greenies," thus providing an ultra-liberal choice but no ultra-conservative choice.

I'll be voting strategically. If my state is solid for one major party candidate or the other (doesn't matter which one), then I can go ahead and vote Libertarian, which is what I want to do. If on the other hand, it turns out to be a swing state and I can realistically affect its electoral votes, then I'll have to pick the lesser evil, which for me is Bush.

I live in what is clearly considered a swing state, so I will definitely be voting for the lesser of two evils (regardless of the month). I suspect most people here are already acutely aware of what I consider to be one of the greatest evils our country has ever endured, so there's little point in opening this posting up to the Wertz-bashing which my criticisms of our current regime tend to inspire...

Well I'm clearly in the minority, but I'll be voting for the candidate I like the most, yah I'm an idealist, but I'm only 25 so I think it's undestandable, I haven't given up on real change yet

When Kerry wins I want the right to complain about him as much as I want, and if I vote for that sucker I'll feel like too much of a hypocrite to do much complaining.

I won't be voting. I'm am ineligible to do so this year. but if I were I would be voting for a favorite candidate. colorado is securely in the republicans hands (we TWO democrats in national office, (out nine I think) and our governor is a republican as we.) thus people here can follow their ideals. (BTW, I plan on leaving this state when I can)

voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Like Wertz, I'm in a battleground state and expect to see a lot more of Bush and Kerry than any reasonable human being can stand.

I'm not down with this "lesser of two evils" stuff. Is John Kerry evil? Is George Bush evil? If they are, does that make anyone else, by default, good? I think we're confusing a candidate who we most prefer to the one we actually have to vote for (or against).

If our candidates are evil or good, what about the people who vote for them? Is anyone who supports Kerry a dupe of terrorists or are Bush backers all supposed to be non-thinking zombies who hate gays and liberals?

Perhaps it is our system of electing people that is flawed and needs repair. Not the people who try to work in this broken system and only perpetuate the bigger problem.

I'll be voting for the better politician and a better political platform/agenda.

That comes under the heading of "good" in my book.

As far as being critical about a candidate I voted for, I see no moral disconnect. It's a job; I'm among the ones doing the hiring; the pay comes from us, and I therefore have a right to critique my employee's performance.

Colorado is indeed run by Republicans right now. This was not always the case, and as such, there is no reason this state can't turn Demo in a short period of time.

Judging from what's gone on since 2000, I imagine other formerly solid Republican states could change as well.

I have the luxury of voting for the best candidate, simply because I live in Utah - and all 5 of our electoral votes will go to Bush even if he nuked half the state.

So I can vote with a clean conscience for the best candidate. I haven't yet determined who that is -- posssibly the Green, possibly Nader, or I many even write in Kucinich since he'd make such a wonderful president.

If the election were held today, as I plan on doing in November, I would vote for the candidate I believe in. If the time ever comes that I feel that I have to hold my nose and vote, I won't be voting which would break my long and decent record of voting.

I was just forced to change my residency so I'm still up in the air about this one. As much as I hate Bush I thin that Kerry is going to hurt us alot more then him. I base this on the state of MA versus the state of Texas, on top of the issues. If Kerry is going to win by a landslide then I'm going to go for Nader. If it is somewhat close then I'll probably vote Bush. If I get to change my residence back to Texas when I go home in May without reprocussions, I definately vote for Nader.

Can you elaborate on this? What has Kerry done that's screwed up MA so badly? What has Bush done in TX that was so great and lasting? Please elaborate, inquiring minds need to know.

I am only 17 as of today, I won't be 18 until August, I'm not sure if I'll be eligible to vote in the 2004 election. If I can, however, I will vote for Kerry. True, this election will be a decision between the lesser of two evils, but since when was there ever an election when there was a diffinitiveley good and bad candidate? If battle lines were that clearly drawn then it would not make for much of an election.

Still, as a potential voter, I must make my decison.

I opted for the lesser of 2 evils, in the past there has been instances where I was happy and excited to vote, this will not be the case this year. It is a sad state of affairs when the lesser of 2 evils look more evil each day that passes, today I feel it would be evil for me to vote at all! Who knows, maybe I will be able to get past my somewhat lengthy list of reservations and actually make a choice or choose not to choose.

I quit voting for the "lesser of 2 evils". If one of the 2 major candidates don't fit the bill, then I look for a minor party candidate, if none of them can be found, I pass.

I havn't had to pass yet, but I could see it happening.

At this juncture I have not decided who I will be voting for.
The only thing I know for sure is that it will NOT be
George W. Bush. It's grim pickins if ya ask me...

I see the "debate" question through perhaps a different set of lenses - the last sentence in the original post. "Is this the best America has to offer?"

In a schizophrenic America, yes, it is the best America has to offer. Whether Democrat or Republican, we seem to demand that our leaders have no major warts or skeletons in their closet (at least none that can't be reasonably hidden). We seem to demand that our leaders be "politically correct", whether or not political correctness gets the job done. We demand that our leaders don't have past failures (personal or professional) on their resumes - never mind that failure builds character and is a great learning tool. Failure is also a wonderful mechanism for developing a very human trait - empathy - something few folks in the higher echelons of politics seem to possess.

As long as our collective litmus test for high political office is the perception of lifelong personal and professional perfection, we'll never enjoy the best leadership America has to offer.

With respect to the poll question, I don't see either George Bush or John Kerry as inherently evil, so my vote won't be cast for the lesser of two evils. It will be cast for the candidate who most closely reflects my own ideals and vision for the direction in which our country should be heading over the next four years.

Didn't mean to imply either of them were evil men because I certainly don't think so. Quite to the contrary, I think they're both decent honorable guys with very different visions for America's future. However I don't think either vision is even remotely close to what's needed, which is why I'm not happy with the choices. When my optiona are A, whom I disagree with 80% of the time, or B, whom I disagree with 70% of the time, then B is preferable, but I'm still choosing between unpleasant options.

I always vote for the candidate I believe in. Since I'm opposed to Bush, Kerry supporters automatically assume that Kerry must be closer to my views than Bush is, and that I'm therefore obligated to vote for him. Below is a list of reforms that I strongly advocate. If all of the current presidential candidates (including Ralph Nader, Gary Nolan and others) were asked to state whether they wholly agreed, partly agreed or wholly disagreed with each of the following proposals, which candidate do you think would be closest to my views? Which candidate do you think would be most opposed to them?

1. Reduce our increasingly dangerous dependency on oil and natural gas by devoting part of the resultant savings from the budget cuts below to (a) the construction of wind power plants, solar power plants and public transit systems, and (b) the educational promotion of permaculture.

http://www.oilcrisis.org
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...eating_oil.html

2. End (or at least greatly curtail) our interventionist foreign policy.

http://physics911.org/net/index.php
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html

3. Repeal both the "Patriot" [Police State Expansion] Act and "Homeland Security" [KGB Revival] Act.

http://www.repealnow.com
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul54.html

4. Repeal both the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign "Reform" Act.

http://www.realcampaignreform.org/what_you_should_know.htm
http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/campfin

5. Enact Congressman Ron Paul's Voter Freedom Act (a ballot access reform bill).

http://www.theorator.com/bills107/hr2268.html
http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/iba.html

6. Institute the Vote-Trakker system (or something similar which provides a voter-verifiable paper audit trail).

http://www.vote-trakker.com

7. Replace plurality voting with instant runoff voting for presidential elections:

http://www.instantrunoff.com

8. Institute proportional representation for Congressional elections.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

9. Require media networks to pay into the public treasury the bulk of the annual rental value of the publicly-owned airwaves to which they enjoy exclusive access, and thereby reverse the monopolistic control that a mere handful of corporations currently exerts over those airwaves. (Use the revenue thus generated to reduce the income tax burden for the bottom 50% of all taxpayers.)

http://www.spectrumpolicy.org
http://www.projectcensored.org/default.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/press.htm
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html

10. Gradually replace the payroll tax with a tax on the unimproved rental value of land.

http://www.getamericaworking.org/program/p...taxes_prblm.htm
http://www.henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm
http://foldvary.net/works/city.html
http://progress.org/archive/fold221.htm

11. Replace our debt-based money system with a debt-free money system.

http://www.wealthmoney.org
http://progress.org/reform21.htm
http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/index.html

12. Withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/
http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/swatch/campaigns/#trade

13. End the drug war.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer

14. Abolish corporate welfare.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

15. End federal involvement in education.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf

16. Repeal federal gun control laws.

http://guncite.com

Todd Altman

smorpheus,



I couldn't have said it better myself. Now if you can just get some conservatives to feel the same way, we would all be just fine! We would't want to give Bush too much of a mandate now, right? It is too bad that there needs to be unification on one side (even if it is a false unification) in order to break down the other side. This is what gets us into this dichotomous mess that we are in today.

TMA68,

Looks to me like the Libertarian Party is clearly closest to your positions, with agreement on roughly 12 out of 16 points. I'm not sure about Gary Nolan specifically, and I'm not yet sure he'll be the LP nominee either. The convention will be May 27-31.

National Platform of the Libertarian Party: Executive Summary

Good Afternoon,
After reading a number of replies, I am prodded to clarify a point. When I used the common phase "Lesser of Two Evils" I am not making a religious or absolutist "Good" vs. "Evil" argument for or against either candidate. I used that phase to attempt a Terse Communication of the concept of making a voting selection based on belief that the candidate selected will accomplish something positive for the country vs. making a selection on the belief that the candidate will HARM the country LESS than his opponent.

I am NOT questioning the basic intent/motivation of either candidate. To use another common expression,
"The road to hell is often paved with good intentions".

=====================================================

World wide, the Left has pursued a socialist "Utopia" where monetary disparities and historical injustices are eliminated by Activist government. The result has universally been the creation of a corrupt, elitist, aristocracy who uses the legal/programmatic enslavement of the masses to enrich and empower themselves.

Power corrupts; as power is concentrated in the central government, its corruption grows apace.

As the disparity between the disenfranchised commoner and the ruling elite grows; the productivity of the work force diminishes under the burdens of an undermined profit motive and the creation of a endemic black market. The result is a miserable, unstable society which collapses under the weight of unrealistic goals within four generations. I will cite numerous historical examples on request.

=====================================================

World wide, the Right has pursued a faith based "Utopia" where moral injustices and historical persecutions are eliminated by Religious government. The result has universally been the creation of a corrupt ruling clergy who uses the doctrine/dogmatic enslavement of the masses to empower and enrich themselves.

Power corrupts; as power is concentrated in the central government, its corruption grows apace.

As the disparity between the disenfranchised commoner and the hypocritical ruling clergy grows, the discontent and disillusionment of the masses grows until the Religion/Society is more hollow than Holy. The result is a miserable, unstable society which collapses under the weight of unrealistic goals within four generations. I will cite numerous historical examples on request.

=====================================================

America's founding fathers knew the dangers of attempting to create a "Utopian" society. Adams is particularly poignant on this issue in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson touches on the issue in the Declaration of Independence. If you don't find the passages I refer to, I will happily point them out. The constitutional convention institutionalized a counter to the concern in creating a government based on separate and counter balancing branches of government. The infant America significantly addressed the concern of a "well intentioned government, at the will of masses, overrunning the rights of the individual" in the creation of the Bill of Rights.

We were a country founded on the principle that Government should be limited in its ability to control the individual by a Government Controlling Constitution. The Constitution is NOT about what rights are granted to the citizenry. The Constitution and its amendments is about limitations placed on Government and its ability to control/effect the individual!

Post-Modern America has lost its grounding in this vital philosophy. The legislative branch, fearing press manipulated electoral backlash, has abdicated its law making responsibility to the activist courts and press. The executive branch has assumed the roll of controlling the purse strings of government, and in the pursuit of pandered victories, created a per capita national debt that makes the common American's ridiculous personal credit card debt, look like a small problem. The Judiciary has abandoned their role as the stable, anchor of moral, cultural and legal values in trade for the popular adulation of the "Enlightened Mantel of Moral Relativism".

Its all part of the Deconstruction of America. But, after all, we cannot replace that outdated compromise of practical government with the new and improved UTOPIA! until all that old junk is cleared out of the way.

The result is a few idealist pushing their flavor of UTOPIA from either the Right or the Left on the Middle. The middle who wants nothing more than to preserve the imperfect, limited, compromise that has served so long and so well.

IMHO the 2000/2004 Elections have awakened the Sleeping Giant, the American Pragmatic Middle. We, the swing vote, say "A pox on both your houses".

The Government that Governs Least, Governs Best.


P.S. Has anyone else noticed that "Liberalism" is a Religeon?

Actually, I've been a Life Member of the LP for seven years, and voted for Harry Browne in the last two presidential elections, so I'm already quite familiar with that group.

I've become somewhat disillusioned with the LP in recent years, however. Why? In short, because an alarming percentage of the rank and file seem to be closet right-wing conservatives, and thus tend to be far more offended by such things as land value taxation (which I advocate) than they are by sales taxation or even wage taxation, and by individual welfare than they are by corporate welfare. Equally disturbing is how embarrassingly reluctant many of them are to seriously criticize the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy. (Indeed, some have practically endorsed it.)


Nor am I, but he does appear to be the frontrunner.


I was at the last two, but won't be attending this one.

Todd Altman

good post.

but seeing as i'm only 32,,, ill have to wait until 2008 at the earliest. sooo,,, this time around i'm going republican, as i always have in presidential elections. Bush isn't perfect by no stretch of the imagination but he is my lesser of two evils.

I have always hated the phrase "lesser of two evils" because it is usually in conjunction with the phrase "anyone but (fill in the blank)", and I think people should look at the qualities of both candidates and make a qualitative decision based on what they want from their government.

However, this year I am willing to make an exception...

anyone but Bush, 2004.

This is my problem with the LP. I believe in a lot of it's ideals, but I'm much farther 'left' than most LP candidates seem to be. I'm actually presently outlining my personal political ideals, and hope to have a clear idea sometime in the next few weeks.

We must do all we can to promote, support, and vote for the best candidate, or Democracy will continue to fail due to lack of participation, and the current autocracy will be allowed to take over because not enough Americans really cared to do the right thing.

Right you are about that. I wouldn't feel too bad about his rather aristocratic past. Although he would be the third richest president in our history(not a shlubby feat by any means) we must also remember that there do tend to be those who turn on the very station of life that creates them. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were to a certain extent, very understanding of the plight of others and tried to institute change(yes, limited but it was till change) When businessmen like Warren Buffet and George Soros say the things that they do, you know that there is still hope for this country yet. I guess my point is that although a person might be born into a higher station in life, that such a luxury sometimes breed a radical sense of values and introspection that leads to good change.