|
So, is there no difference between the two major candidates? If there is, it would make sense for anyone for whom those differences are important to try to defeat the side they disagree with. Voting for Nader or anyone else doesn't help you beat Bush or Kerry. That's reality.
It there is no difference b/t the two major parties, then there are a lot of reasonably intelligent people on this board who have no idea what is going on since they put so much effort into arguing for one side or the other.
What in the wide world of sports would make anyone think that any third party would stand for truth, morality and dignity if it had any real chance at winning?
I don't know what separates us from the animals, but I know it isn't related to how anyone reading this votes tomorrow. Polls suggest that around two-thirds of the military vote will probably go for Bush. I'm not ready to declare their loss of dignity and self-respect for that decision anymore than I would suggest the same for the one-third that will vote for Kerry. For that 1/2 of once percent that will choose someone else, good for them, but I'm sorry, that one decision doesn't not make them better, smarter, or awash in dignity and self-respect.
If I want to be excercise my right as a free-thinking individual and vote for a candidate who leaves it up to me, the intelligent, informed voter, where would I turn?
There are lots of good reasons to vote a third party--protest, really believe it is the best vote, can't decide between the major parties--but the fact that it makes you special and smart isn't one of them.
And, and I know this all sounds pretty negative, I wouldn't put much stock in having Belzer and/or Maher as professors of political history.
|