||[Oct. 8th, 2004|11:32 pm]
I'm not going to comment on the debates because side-by-side press conferences aren't interesting to talk about, nor a good judge of who would a good president. (That said, although Bush had a decent showing this time compared to the first debate, I do think that Kerry had a stronger presentation both times. I'm just disapointed that such antics have such a strong sway on people's opinions.)|
Instead, I leave you with a Daily Show quote from a few nights ago because it really amused me:
"Apparantly there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their capabilities had been degraded and they pretty much stopped trying anything back in '98. Both the President and Vice President came out today in response to the findings and said that they clearly justified the invasion of Iraq. So... uh... Some people look at a glass and see it as half full.... and other people look at a glass and say that it's a dragon."
PS. For those of you who haven't heard, Poland is leaving. Such sorrow.
third party guys know they have no chance, thus can be goofier and more outspoken...that's why I want them at the debates. They knowledge that they have no chance frees them to discuss issue more directly, even if it means pissing people off
of course the US is better than the old USSR...much like Churchill's quip America is the worst country, except for all the others. western europe's unemployment rate is ridiculously high in most cases and I would thus always say US > western europe as a place to live. However, that doesnt mean I should prefer our winner take allish election system over the european systems where third parties can actually matter.
The flip side of that, you know, is that the Austrians elected a neo-Nazi a few years back.
that's a fair point..or that france had someone that made pat buchanan look liberal running against chirac a few years ago. Basically, I think the libertarians are a legitimate party with novel, yet not psycho, ideas and I would like to see them get more attention....they are in stark contrast to both parties brutal spending policies. even republicans have become pretty much big government...at least Bush has. I think Libertarians would be interesting because civil rights advocates who can't stomach kerry would like him and fiscally responsible, small government republicans would too...but the two big parties hate each other so much that they wouldnt take a chance and vote for the third guy because they rather have their guy, who they may disagree with on 3 issues win than the other big party guy, whom they see as satan with a tie.
You know, it's a shame that the libertarian economic ethos is lunacy, because I really like their social program, being the pro-2nd amendment, pro-choice type of guy that I am. But I'm sorry - the whole philosophy of "let's trust big business to do what's best for the country" is pure idiocy, particularly in the post-Enron era. Moreover, if Reagan's ideology of neoliberal economics was really practical, I'm pretty sure that Reagan would have done it himself LOL Ahhh well...
yeah ecnomically they are living in the 1920's....however the small government idea I like...the getting rid of the useless drug war I like....the live and let live social program I like...I think maybe what they should do is figure out a way to approve of a mixed economic system as opposed to their love of pure capitalism...and yet still hold true to small government. is that possible? I think so...I think efficiant in the areas in needs to control, yet still small is possible, at least in theory.
Yeah, we're going to disagree on this, because in terms of economics, I'm pretty much a socialist. LOL
I don't think you're crazy or anything. I see the appeal behind small government. I just don't buy it, myself.
The other side of the coin is that since the 3rd party candidates have no chance, they are going to talk like their nuts in order to attract attention for them and their cause. For instance, I watched the acceptance speech of the guy that the Greens were going to run instead of Nader (you know, I totally forget his name, and I'm not even sure they're running him anymore). I agree with several of the Green Party principles, but this guy wasn't even talking about things like the environment, progressive electoral reform, or whatever. He was just ranting and raving and acting like a lunatic in order to gain attention for his candidacy and his party. Is this helpful? I don't really think so. I think that them being goofy just wastes our time and prevents the other candidates from speaking about real issues, as they have to sit there and address all of the crazy crap that comes out of the 3rd party members mouth.
That said, I'm all about incorporating more parties into the system. The thing you need to realize is that once we regulate the system by installing Euro style spending caps and giving the candidates a set amount of air time for tv ads, the marginalized party crazy talk will end, because the crazy parties are going to adopt the language of the other parties while moderating their tone, as they try to appeal to the most conservative population in the Western world. It's sad, but if/when these parties are wholeheartedly allowed to join the system, you will see their moderation and their move to the middle to join the Dems and the Repubs.