Friday, October 01, 2004

Boring Political Commentary

For my fourth blog, I've decided to go political for a bit. Right off the bat, I'll tell you I have no idea who I'll vote for (or if I'll bother). So basically I'm going to rant for a bit and see if I come to a decision. Having not actually remembered to watch the debates last night, I did just read the transcript.

George Bush has shown himself to have the cojones to stand firm in doing what he believes is right even if it's not popular at the time, and I respect that. However, it is not necessarily true that what he believes is right is actually best for this country. Also, the man either is controlled, or most certainly appears to be controlled, by other members of his administration in many regards. I don't know about the rest of you out there in this country, but I don't think the majority of us own large businesses or oil companies. And it would be very difficult to deny that many of Bush's economic policy decisions have benefitted the aforementioned entities. Granted, sometimes what benefits a big company also benefits its employees, but I think the government should be a little bit more discrectionary in who gets those big tax breaks/multi-billion dollar contracts and why. Helping the airlines out a bit after 9/11 I can see, but not without a plan for getting back in the black, and the same with any other corporate welfare. I'm not an economist or anything, but maybe a little capitalism couldn't hurt here, if we were to just let the companies fail who weren't doing well (because that have bad service or a poor product, etc), perhaps more competitive companies would emerge. Yes, people would lose jobs in the short term, but I think those jobs would be recreated in a more stable economy. As far as Iraq, which most of the debate centered on, yes, Hussein was a huge dickhead (as many historians have said) and no doubt Iraq and possibly the world at large are better served with him gone. However, I think I tend to agree with Kerry that maybe a bit more planning could have been in order. I don't think more UN resolutions would have done anything, but it doesn't seem like we went in with much more strategy than "we got more people and bigger guns".

So on to Kerry. Now, he made some good points concerning some holes in Bush's logic. However, as often as he pointed to his 20 years of Senate experience, or his military service, he very rarely ever brought up anything relevant that he actually did. Now, I know he says he has a plan on his website for finishing up in Iraq in short order, but I don't really consider that having done anything. He even admitted himself (though he likely didn't intend to) that he had changed his mind on several issues. Granted, it is good to keep an open mind if you intend to make well reasoned decisions, but changing your mind based on popular opinion is foolish. Just because a lot of people think a certain way doesn't mean they're right (mob mentality?). Additionally, I don't see Kerry as being any more in touch with the common man than Bush is.

Basically, I don't know how comfortable I'd be with either of these men running my country for the next four years. If Bush, even if we do get out of Iraq soon, no reason not to send our soldiers somewhere else. If Kerry, anything could happen. I'm not saying he would necessarily cause terrorism to worsen, but should the majority of the public decide it's no longer a threat, then hey, he's got no good reason to support anti-terrorist activities. Both candidates seem to perpetuate that whole "culture of fear" thing, basically hammering home people's gravest fears, then saying that things would get worse under their opponent and better under them.

But who knows? Not I. I'm voting for the Easter Bunny, because even if we went to war, who would want to fight a giant bunny who gives away free chocolate?


Post a Comment

<< Home