It seems everyone is rallying to Kerry because they want Bush out of office, but Bush-hatred is blinding otherwise intelligent voters from even taking a good look at the man they allegedly want to lead the nation. What's wrong with pointing a critical eye at a candidate for President?
On this site, you will not find a great deal of praise for Bush and Cheney, or articles convincing you that you should vote for Bush in 2004 (at least not directly). What this site attempts to do is explain why voting for Kerry and Edwards is a dangerous idea. This is a blog of exploration, devoted to searching for as much information as possible on the two Democratic nominees. I will strive to be as fair as I know how, additionally acknowledging when Kerry is "good" or Bush is "bad". But the central thesis, that Kerry and Edwards would be the wrong choice for the nation, is what I'll try to illustrate. (In other words, if you're an undecided voter, you would be wise to read some fair and well-researched anti-Bush blogs as well, and make up your own mind as to who is better or worse, based on the best information you can find.)
In a Democracy of 300 million people (and therefore 300 million opinions), it should never be as black and white as the opposition of one candidate equalling support of another. Yet look at the vehemence of the anti-Nader Democrats, particularly bizarre since nearly ever Kerry voter I know is closer to Nader, not Kerry, in their beliefs and ideology. How circular and sad is the following argument:
Anti-Busher: "Bush lied about WMDs. The war is wrong. I'm voting for Kerry."
Me: "But Kerry said Saddam had WMDs too, and voted for the war as well. And now he's saying we wants to
increase the number of troops in Iraq, and recently stated that he still would have voted for the war
even if he knew there weren't going to be any WMDs. Shouldn't you vote for Nader then, who actually opposes the war as you do?"
Anti-Busher: (with irrational, trembling rage)
"Uh... uh... no! A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush! That f*%$%ing Nader is going to ruin everything!!!!" You see my point. Add to that the fact that the Democratic Party itself is trying every dirty trick in the book to keep Ralph Nader off the ballots in most states and you wonder what freedoms the DNC really claims to stand for anymore.
(And they claim
Bush tries to stifle dissenting opinion?)
I want to have a dialog about whether Kerry is fit to be President
independent of one's feelings on Bush. It seems like every time I try to talk about Kerry's positions or past with someone, they always,
always change the subject to a critique of the current administration ("uh, well, yeah, but Bush is a liar", etc.) That's not useful or productive. We need to talk about Kerry, not Bush -- and only if we feel Kerry is a worthy man for the job should we get to the "okay, now who's the better candidate" conversation. But opponents of the President just want to skip over the "is Kerry a good choice" part and jump right to the vote. I find that reckless.
