This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
Hi all… those of you who have known me for a bit may know that for the last, um… 12 years or so… going on 16 years… I’ve had a little tradition. Regardless of who wins, I’ve attended every presidential inauguration since I have been able to vote. Not special seats up front or anything, no Inaugural balls, nothing like that. Just going out to the Mall in Washington and standing there with hundreds of thousands of other people and being a witness to the historical event… well, at least a witness to the broadcast of the historical event on jumbotrons set up all over the Mall, since you’re way to far away to see anything with your own eyes, or even binoculars. Except the protesters. It is always easy to see the protesters. Whoever loses never tends to be happy about it, so there are always protesters. And sometimes you can see a bit more in the parade after the inauguration. Sometimes.
Anyway, so far this has both Bill Clinton inaugurations, and the George W Bush inauguration. Each time I’ve had a slightly different group of people with me. I’m not 100% sure it will be practical this year, what with me now being in Florida, rather than in Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Jersey where I was for the last three. But…
I am going to try. Tentatively it looks like Brandy and Amy will join me if we can work out the details and plane fares. And we’ll probably spend a few days visiting other friends and relatives in the mid-Atlantic while we are there.
But does anybody else want to join us for the actual inauguration? Rebecca has attended the previous three with me, the only person to have been at all three with me, but she will not be able to make it this time. So, anybody else?
Just one catch… it is now one week before the election. You have to tell me that you want to go with me BEFORE the results of the election are known. None of this “I’ll go if my guy wins”. This is just to be an observer to a historical event that happens once every four years, not to show support for any one candidate or another.
So, anybody? Anybody?
It is always fun to see the event and watch the people who turn out (including the protesters). The weather often sucks, but hey, it is January in Washington. :-) Just dress warm!
Let me know if you are interested!!!
OK, first the text:
ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LAND AND WATER AREAS BOND REFERENDUM
Shall Brevard County issue bonds to finance the acquisition, improvement and maintenance of environmentally endangered land and water areas for the protection of habitat, public open space, and water resources, and for providing passive recreational opportunities, provided the bonds do not exceed Sixty Million Dollars ($60,000,000) bearing interest not exceeding the maximum legal rate and maturing in twenty (20) years payable from the levy of ad valorem taxes not exceeding .2085 mills?
OK. This one is harder than the last few, because I have mixed feelings on this. The purpose of this is to provide funds toward the purchasing of “open space” land for public use and preservation rather than private development… typically more housing developments and shopping centers as the population of the county increases. Now, in general, I like the idea of preserving the land and parks are cool. And in the end nicer than a bunch more development. I like the idea of making sure a lot of land is set aside for those type of uses.
On the other hand, I’m being a bit hypocritical, having just moved here, but immediately saying essentially that I want to slow down the movement of more people here.
Also, there is the general notion of encouraging the government to buy and own property and land and such. Now, an absolutist on the Libertarian scale would say that government shouldn’t own anything at all, or perhaps just the bare minimum needed to operate. I am not an absolutist though. I think it is OK for government to own a few things. And it is probably an OK use of government resources to buy land for conservation. I would *prefer* that private interests who cared a lot about conservation do it instead. But as a poor second choice, I guess the government can do it. I’m not sure I feel 100% right about that though.
Finally though, there is the “how do you pay for it” issue. This is paying for it by issuing bonds… which is increasing the public debt. In general, although it is a very common practice in governement, and certainly by individuals… including myself… taking on debts for major purchases makes me nervous. What ever happened to pay as you go? Why not just allocate a portion of the annual budget toward saving for these things, and once every few years spend some on it. Or something like that. Only buy what you can actually pay for. Etc. Why accrue debt? OK. I know good reasons to do so sometimes. So the question becomes, is the county managing debt properly and keeping to managable reasonable amounts that just serve to spread the cost of major purchases out making things more predictable year to year, or are they doing like the Federal government and operating an ever increasing amount of debt that will cause problems down the road… So, I spent some time looking at last year’s Brevard County Budget. It looks like the budget is balanced, revenues are increasing year over year, etc. Sounds healthy. Looks like it could absorb the new debt.
I was initially going to vote against this simply because they were issuing bonds to do it rather than paying as they went. And because of my general uneasyness at government buying up land, no matter how good the purpose… but I think after looking at the budgets and everything else, I can overcome those concerns, and live with being hypocritical on being for development before I got here and against development after… in the long run, this will probably make for a better county. So here goes.
I will vote: FOR THE BONDS
Hmmm. That is a very weak yes though. I could still flip flop on this one. I’m right on the line.
![]() So, Saturday morning we took Brandy’s mom to the airport in Orlando to go back to Pennsylvania. (She had been visiting for Amy’s birthday.) As it happens, Brandy, having signed up to volunteer for the Kerry campaign, had some tickets to a John Edwards event in Orlando. So we stopped by. Before and after the event, Amy got to play on the moon bounce that was provided for the kids. There was an hour or so of waiting before anything happened. It was good that it was a nice day! Finally there were a few short speeches by some union types and local politicians… then John Edwards did indeed appear. We were probably about 30 feet back in the crowd from the podium. I took a few pictures. Including the one here.
The event we were at was the opening of a new union hall, so the crowd was mostly union. And Edwards oriented his speech in that direction. So there was a little bit on foreign policy and Iraq and such, but not a huge amount. Then they talked about health care, and social security, and trade policies, and all of that sort of thing. For me though, that probably had the wrong effect. Because what he was doing was not talking much about the areas in which I agree with them and instead he was emphasising the stuff where I disagree with them. Of course, I was not the intended audience. The union folks in the crowd were. And they ate it up. There was all sorts of waving of signs and cheering and people were very excited. After the event they were organizing busses to early voting locations and the like. I bet a lot of the folks did just that.
We did not however. We weren’t in the right county to actually vote. And in my case anyway, I still have more research to do before I am ready to vote, especially on the local races and issues. Also, Amy had something to do in the afternoon, so we had to get back to Melbourne.
Coincidentally, President Bush was speaking just north of Melbourne today as well. I wish we had had tickets for that as well. It would have been very interesting to go straight from one to the other and compare and contrast. As it turns out, one of Amy’s friends from the neighborhood did have tickets and went with her family. We did not though. Coming home on I-95, we had to content ourselves with watching what appeared from a distance to be Air Force One on final approach into Patrick Air Force Base. That almost counts, right?
OK, now the ballot text on this one simply says:
Shall the Preamble be revised and incorporated into Section 1.1 of the Charter of Brevard County so as to give legal effect to the provisions of the preamble?
Well, OK, obviously there isn’t enough information here to make a decision. However the full text of the existing county charter is here and the full text of the proposed amendment is here. Using those two together we see that they are trying to change this:
PREAMBLE
We, the people of Brevard County, in the belief that governmental decisions affecting the interests of our County should be made locally rather than by the State, in order to establish a government responsive to the needs and wishes of the citizens and to guarantee equal civil and political rights for all; do hereby avail ourselves of the opportunity afforded by the Constitution of Florida to adopt a Home Rule Charter, conceived in the interest of cooperation with the municipalities and other governmental units of the County; and do ordain and establish this Home Rule Charter for Brevard County.
ARTICLE 1
CREATION, POWERS AND ORDINANCES OF HOME RULE CHARTER GOVERNMENT
Section 1.1.  Creation and general powers of home rule charter government
Brevard County shall be a home rule charter county, and, except as may be limited by this Home Rule Charter, shall have all powers of self-government granted now or hereafter by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida.
to get rid of the preamble entirely and change Article 1 Section 1.1 to:
ARTICLE 1
CREATION, POWERS AND ORDINANCES OF HOME RULE CHARTER GOVERNMENT
Section 1.1.  Creation and general powers of home rule charter government
WE, THE PEOPLE of Brevard County, residing in the constituent state of Florida of the United States of America, grateful for and secure in our protected individual rights, and in affirmation of dedication to the Constitutions and laws of the United States of the State of Florida, do ordain and establish this Home Rule Charter for the execution of our County Government for the most common benefits to all our inhabitants. Brevard County shall be a home rule charter county, and, except as may be limited by this Home Rule Charter, shall have all powers of self-government granted now or hereafter by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida.
OK. This is supposidly to make the statements in the preamble have force of law since they are in the charter itself rather than in a preamble. However all that is being moved is essentially the statement that Brevard County is in Florida and we are grateful for our rights. This seems pointless, and the original is more verbose, and I like verbosity. And the best statement in favor of this I could find was a Florida Today Editorial that said
a minor alteration that does no harm and strengthens the preamble’s legitimacy
Uh huh. Pointless change, waste of time. Does no harm. Not a good enough argument.
So on this one, my vote is: NO
Starting with this post over the next week and a half or so until the election, I’ll be working my way up the ballot from the bottom, deciding how to vote on each issue or race. Of course I will share that with my handful of loyal readers. I’m starting at the bottom which is local referenda, then the state referenda, then local offices, then state offices, then national offices, and finally president.
So lets start with this one:
Brevard County Charter Amendment 3
“Truth in Taxation”
Shall the Brevard County Charter be amended to require publication of notice of tax increase in any year in which the Board of County Commisioners tentatively adopts a property tax millage rate in excess of the roll-back rate computed pursuant to Florida Statutes?
Well, OK. I did a little googling on this just to make sure there wasn’t anything that didn’t seem obvious here, and it seemed to be straightforward. It just requires public notice of changes in property tax rates that would result in increased revenue. Which could be due to increases in the rate, or in the tax base. In any case, it is all about notification and transparency in government, which I am all for.
So on this one, I will vote: YES
Being the junkie that I am, especially with things being as close as they are, every day I check a few of the places doing predictions of the electoral college results based on state polls. A pet peeve of mine is any place that even bothers mentioning national poll results as if they are at all relevant to anything. The popular vote doesn’t matter. The electoral college does.
Luckily there are dozens of places doing electoral college analysis, ranging from major main stream news outlets to individuals tracking this on their own. Some of them have really solid methodologies, some have odd methods, some are trying to be unbiased, some are clearly partisan. But they are all interesting.
Anyway, as a reference to anybody who wants to look at this kind of stuff, here are my favorite places to check regularly:
UnFutz: Once or twice a week UnFutz comes out with an electoral college survey. This basically provides links to almost all of the places on the web doing this sort of analysis on an ongoing basis. In addition UnFutz adds meta-analysis, averages, graphs and all sorts of other interesting things aggregating the results of all the others. From here you can look at the overall trends and also click through to each of the source sites to see them in detail. If you want to look at this stuff, start here. In between the surveys UnFutz is also publishing some additional meta-analysis. For the most recent UnFutz survey as of this post, look here.
electionprojection.com: This site is done by a Bush supporter, but tries to have a neutral methodology. He has an interesting method that takes into account not just state polls, but also the national polls, approval ratings, and other things. I now check other places more often, but this is one of the first I found, and I got into a habit of looking, so it is still on my list.
electoral-vote.com: The must check site. Not necessarily because they have a better methodology, or their prediction is most likely to be right, or anything like that, but simply because they update every day, and have some cool graphs. They also provide daily commentary on what has changed since the previous days, thoughts on the validity of the results, and that sort of thing. As of today their graph shows just how volatile the electoral college is in a race this close. Since tracking started on this site in May, the lead has changed *SEVENTEEN TIMES*.
After spending time looking at all these sorts of things, including the tracking graphs on several, and seeing the current breakdown of the predictions on UnFutz (20 Bush winning, 15 bush ahead, 8 Kerry ahead, 19 Kerry winning) only one thing is clear… barring something huge happening in the next couple weeks, we definately won’t know the results until (at least) election night. This isn’t one of those where month ahead of time you pretty much knew how it would turn out. Every daily news cycle has the possibility of shifting the results significanty… with winner take all in most states, and so many states split right down the middle and really too close to call… it’ll all come down to how a handful of states end up falling at the very last minute, and that will depend on how the small number of undecideds fall, as well as how the far off the polls end up being from reality.
It should be fun. And of course, it will be even more interesting (although not necessarily fun) if any of the things listed in this article happen:
Florida 2000: The Sequel
(Richard Hasen, Slate)
Nightmare Scenarios
No. 1: Litigation Following Voting Glitch
No. 2: Litigation Over Whose Vote Counts
No. 3: Litigation Over Colorado’s Amendment 36
No. 4: Electoral College Woes in Congress
No. 5: Terrorist Attack That Disrupts Voting
(via electoral-vote.com)
There are also issues already bubbling about absentee votes and problems there, and various irregularities in voting in various places… none of which will matter at all if one or the other candidate pulls far enough ahead, but if it is close… I suppose it is too much to ask to get fun like 2000 twice in a row????
I promised my thoughts on the various debates, and keep forgetting to do that, so here goes. Since the first thoughts are what I really want, I’ll grab things from emails I sent at the time when I can…
First Presidential Debate
(my comments sent at 1 Oct 2004 04:02:40 UTC)
I though Kerry definitely won. He came off much more together and coherent and his answers were a lot more thought out. He did a lot better than I expected. Bush did just about how I expected. I was surprised at just HOW much he just kept repeating his stock phrases and prepared stock answers. I expected both of them to do some repetition, it is part of what you do. And they both did. But over and over W kept going back to the same few things, even when it wasn’t related to the question at all… and I was just amused by some of the long pauses.
Vice Presidential Debate
(my comments sent 6 Oct 2004 11:18:19 UTC)
Unlike the other one, this one was a fair fight where both contestants were in the game. In the first half though, Cheney was running circles around Edwards. Edwards looked and sounded like a young wippersnapper who had a few lines he wanted to get off, while Cheney sounded like an authoratative adult who knew what the hell he was talking about. Edwards did a little bit better in the second half when they got to domestic policy, but just a little bit better, not a lot. He never pulled ahead. Cheney won this one.
I also note, that although I probably still would have issues picking a candidate, I’d be a lot happier if these were the two choices rather than Bush/Kerry. Either one of these guys would be better than the ones above them on the tickets.
(IE: I may still violently disagree with Cheney on many things, but at least it is obvious he has thought about the issues and has some complexity and depth behind his positions. Edwards is less of a difference, but I’ve just had a better reaction to him than Kerry, going all the way back to the primaries. He’s slick in a Clintonian way, but I still trust him more than Kerry.)
Second Presidential Debate: Well, I didn’t really comment much at the time in any form I can cut and paste. I thought it was much more even. Bush did a good job. Kerry did a good job. No knockouts, nothing significant. I was not impressed by the format. If you are going to have a town hall, have a real town hall. If you are just going to do what they did there, dispense with the audience and just have the moderator do it.
Third Presidential Debate: Well, to be honest… Domestic issues kind of bore me for the most part (with some exceptions) and I was kind of tired to begin with. I fell asleep at least three or four times trying to watch this debate. If it wasn’t for the Tivo I never would have made it through. As it was it took me several days. And I end up with very groggy impressions of it. So I can’t put a real opinion together. The polls and such seem to have Kerry coming out better from it.
Well, that is my debate opinion summary.
On Friday the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart was on Crossfire on CNN. And he just completely lit into them. Go Jon! Follow the link for the full transcript, or go here for the video. Here are my favorite bits…. (The […] indicates I’ve left stuff out, sometimes several minutes of stuff, so some context and back and forth is missing… I took out a bunch of the times Carlson and Begala inturrupted… go read the full transcript or watch the video to get the whole thing…)
Crossfire Transcript for 15 Oct 2004
CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive? […]
STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive. I enjoyed his way of speaking. I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can’t win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE. Or “HARDBALL” or “I’m Going to Kick Your Ass” or.. Will jump on it. In many ways, it’s funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. […] And I wanted to — I felt that that wasn’t fair and I should come here and tell you that I don’t — it’s not so much that it’s bad, as it’s hurting America. […] So I wanted to come here today and say… […] Here’s just what I wanted to tell you guys. […] Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America. […] See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. And we’re left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we’re too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you’re not too rough on them. You’re part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks. […] You know, it’s interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. […] I didn’t realize that — and maybe this explains quite a bit. […] is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. […] So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you’re holding politicians’ feet to fire, I think that’s disingenuous. I think you’re… […] So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you’re holding politicians’ feet to fire, I think that’s disingenuous. I think you’re… […] No, no, no, but what I’m saying is this. I’m not. I’m here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they’re hurting us. And it’s — the idea is…
BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is — if the indictment is — and I have seen you say this — that… […] And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white. […] Well, it’s because, see, we’re a debate show. […] It’s like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front. […] We’re 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that’s like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.
CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I’m sorry. I think you’re a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring. […]
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie. […] So this is theater. […] Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie. […] But the thing is that this — you’re doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. […] It’s not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you’re accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You’ve got to be kidding me. He comes on and you…
STEWART: You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. […] What is wrong with you?
CARLSON: Well, I’m just saying, there’s no reason for you — when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy’s butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It’s embarrassing.
STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far — you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago. […] You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk…
CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I’m not going to be your monkey.[…]
CARLSON: I do think you’re more fun on your show. Just my opinion. […]
STEWART: You know what’s interesting, though? You’re as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
(via Fark)
Now, I haven’t watched Crossfire in a long time. (Although I was in the audience for one taping a few years back.) It was interesting back in the Buchanon/Kinsey days, but since then I just have found it annoying. But this is one of the best Crossfires I have ever seen. They get taken to task about the whole premise of their show and similar shows.
I Tivo the Daily Show every day. I usually don’t watch it until a week or more later, but I do watch it all the time. And I watch and listen to news and commentary from a lot of other sources every day, mostly online. (I don’t watch nearly as much TV news as I used to.) And the striking thing time and time again is that Stewart is the only one doing a really good and consistant job of calling both the media and the politians on when they are being hypocritical, when they are just using vapid words with no content, etc.
I’ve heard talking heads on the various news networks or elsewhere talk sadly about how “young people get their news from the Daily Show” and how bad this was since they were not getting “real news”. I think it is even sadder that a comedy show can time after time provide a more insightful view into current events than the “real news”.
Anyway, watch the clip. It is good stuff.
Today’s update at electoral-vote.com has a bunch of polls that have now been taken SINCE the first Bush/Kerry debate last week. The lead has shifted. Bush had been in the lead basically since the Republican convention. Not any more.
Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
There are 48 new polls today in a total of 25 states. The bottom line is that Kerry is continuing to surge. He now has more than the 270 votes in the electoral college needed to be elected president. However, his margin is razor thin in many states. Still, this is a remarkable comeback. From the electoral college graph you can see how steep his rise has been. All of this gain is undoubtedly due to the first debate. Needless to say, tonight’s debate will be extremely important for both candidates.
Most of the other EV tracking sites update less often, but the debate effect should start showing up on them fully with their next updates soon too. (Most had the totals already starting to shift as the first few polls in critical states started coming in, but now enough time has elapsed that there are lots more state by state post-debate polls available.)
This whole thing is still VERY close. How they do on the next two debates will be critical. Along with news events between now and the election. Every little thing makes a difference with margins this small.
I was going to post my thoughts on the Presidential debate from last week and the VP debate from earlier this week, but at this point I think I’ll wait until I’ve watched tonight’s too.
OK, it has been awhile, so time one again for the SelectSmart Presidential Candidate Selector. This time around my results were:
63% Match: Badnarik, Michael – Libertarian
46% Match: Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat
46% Match: Cobb, David – Green Party
46% Match: Nader, Ralph – Independent
43% Match: Bush, President George W. – Republican
36% Match: Brown, Walt – Socialist Party
26% Match: Peroutka, Michael – Constitution Party
Now, this puts me in a pickle. Normally I’d be happy to go ahead and vote for the Libertarian. They usually match my views best (although less so than in previous years, my views are evolving on some issues). And Badnarik is the only candidate with more than a 50% match on the quiz. (Which also jives with my gut feelings issues wise listening to and reading about the positions… I would never base anything on this quiz alone, as fun as it is.)
But… unlike the Libertarian candidates in the last three elections, who while clearly with no chance to win and with a few views that were “out there” even beyond my own, basically shared my philosophy and seemed like decent people. Idealistic, unrealistic perhaps, but basically sane even if a bit eccentric. Not so this year. Badnarik is a complete nutcase.
Dark Horse on the Third Ballot
(R. W. Bradford, Liberty)
Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn’t filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas’ more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver’s license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as “federal territories.”
He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik’s theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they’d be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building’s occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote:
“I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.”
One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn’t come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members.
At the time of the Libertarian convention back when my blog was dark, there were a number of articles in main stream media echoing and confirming some of the goofyness and the basic information, but this article is the most detailed I have found regarding both this guys unorthodox opinions as well as the crazy politics that led to him getting the nomination over two other candidates that while not ideal either, were at least not this bad. There is no way I can possibly cast a vote for Badnarik.
Which puts me in a dilemma. None of the others appeal to me in the slightest either. At this point I have a pretty strong aversion to W. I think he has made just about every wrong choice possible since he has been in office, and ESPECIALLY in the last two years or so when he was able to use 9/11 as an excuse for just about everything.
I don’t have that same viceral feeling about Kerry, but on the other hand I know from some of the things he says that I will be pulling my hair out about many things he would advocate and the directions he would take on many issues if he won. But, the question becomes, are the things I would be upset with Kerry about less important than the things I would be upset with W about?? Quite possibly. I will have to think about that.
Meanwhile, of the other 46% candidates (although it galls me to even consider anybody under 50%) Nadar is out. Every time I see him interviewed the more my opinion of him drops. I find very little I can agree with him on, and from a character and personality point of view I just can’t see him as president.
Which leaves David Cobb. I know almost nothing about him. I will definately spend a bit more time researching him before the election. (Assuming he is on the Florida ballot, I’ll have to confirm that.) Just glancing at his issues summary on the SelectSmart site though I immediately see several things I could not support. Urgh.
I don’t really want to do a write in, and I will definately vote. Will I actually be forced to vote for Kerry? Yuck. Maybe it will have to be a write in. Dunno. :-(
It would be really nice if at least once, there was a candidate with a chance of winning that came even close to my views on at least, say 60% of the things I care about? But no, doesn’t look like that will happen any time soon…
Oh well.
|
|