Friday, 29 October 2004, 16:04:52 EDT

The 2004 election is four days away if you don't subscribe to "early voting," not including today. Hopefully after the furor of the election dies down this site will become less political once again. But, until that time comes, you don't get that luxury.

My buddy Jonathan made a post on his site last night about his opinion of the current election. I decided that I would like to follow up with some of my opinions on the things he has said. So, it would behoove you to read his post before this one.

Jonathan mostly concentrates on the two primary parties, Republicans and Democrats, because, I am sad tosay, they are the only two real considerataions this time. He references my post in which I pointed out the reasons for not considering the two other major parties' (Green and Libertarian) candidates. I fully agree with a lot of what he has to say but I think there is more to it.

Jonathan's remarks about Bush (Republicans) are mostly spot on why I could not in good conscience vote for him. I already stated why the Patriot Act is the most abominable act ever passed. Bush's insistence that it be made permanent without change is reason enough for me to discredit him as worty of my vote. His insistence on, basically, instituting religion in to government affairs is right up there, if not more abhorrent than, with the Patriot Act. His unwavering support of the amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only is infuriating. No, the amendment does not affect me; but, I also believe that if two men or two women want to marry each then that is their business not mine or the government's. In short, the man's policies make him a very poor choice in my opinion.

Jonathan makes the claim that John Kerry's whole platform is "I'm not Bush. Bush is bad. Vote for me." I don't see it that way. Yes, there is a lot of that, in some form, in his campaign. I don't think that is all there is to it though and I think that is mostly anyone's platform running against an incumbent. They may not say it quite as bluntly but that is the main theme. Do I think Kerry is the best man for the job? Not really. I will tell you that during the primaries I did not vote for him. I don't think he is as straight forward as other candidates that were in the primaries and I would really rather have seen someone else get the nomination for his party. That being said, I think he is a better choice than Bush solely because of the reasons I have already stated for Bush being the worse choice. There is really nothing outstanding about the man but at least he is in favor of fixing the Patriot Act and not shoving his political beliefs down the throats of every American.

From there Jonathan starts in on the real reason why I am writing this — syndicated AM radio talk show hosts. Particularly Sean Hannity (by the way Jonathan, it is spelled with a 't' ;) ). Sean Hannity is the biggest jackass ever to be on the radio. His constant statement "we have to win" ticks me off to no end. Who is "we" and what are they trying to "win"? When John Stewart went on CNN's Crossfire and told the hosts that they, and people like them, are "hurting America" he was talking about people like Sean Hannity; if you haven't seen it then ask me for it and I will find a way to get the video clip to you. Hannity's show is nothing more than a way for him to innundate people with his mindless, unsubstantiated, half truths. I tried to listen to him for a while but gave up; he refuses to acknowledge all sides of issues and forcefully rejects any opinion, or fact, that contridicts his own.

When he says "we have to win" he is only further showing his ignorance. The issue of who wins the presidency is not a competition other than there are several people competing with each other for the position. "We" are not competing for anything. "We," the American people, are merely voicing our opinion as to who we think is the best person for the job of President of the United States. Our opinion really means squat in the system that is in place. The people who really decide who to elect as president can completely ignore our opinion and select whomever they feel like selecting. Article 2 Section 1 in the United States' Constitution defines how the president of these States shall be elected; particularly clauses two and three. No where in that section does it state that the people of the united states shall elect the president. The fact that we even cast a vote for whom we would like to see hold the position is a matter of formality and appeasement at best. We do, however, choose the people that will select the president. These people that we select are supposed to represent our interests. So, if they go against the popular vote they are risking their future careers and thus the popular vote does matter to some degree. Just remember, "we" are not "winning" anything. That statement is so absurd I don't understand how anyone can possibly listen to that man knowing he says it (and believes in it).

I have started to believe that at least voicing your opinion is the right thing to do. I encourage you to vote to at least tell your representatives what you think. It doesn't matter to me who you vote for so long as you believe you are making the best decision. Please don't vote because your party "has to win." The system is already slanted enough without people voting for a party name and party name only.