well ... on some level i am somewhat pleased. i think of all the people running for the democratic nomination, i liked edwards the best. i don't know why. and i would stress that, one, like is a subjective term not based on politics, and, two, despite knowing that he was evil, i always liked george w. bush better than al gore.
but edwards has that thing that makes people likable, and that means something. it makes a person able to be sold to the slightly retarded masses. but just as was the case with bush, that's not always a good thing.
the problem is just that politics matter a lot. and i am not sure that i trust edwards as a politician. i just don't know. dean was kind of crazy, and that set me at ease. i think i liked the politics of kucinich the best. the problem was just that people condemning the war unilatterally were not given any sort of flexibility from the press.
it makes me think of the old ben franklin quote: 'there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace' (or someting like that). but sometimes people just buy this stupid fucking notion of a good war. they believe in the justification of evil. in fact, they over look the basic idea that it is evil that begets justification. after all, you wouldn't need to justify something that is at its nature good.
sorry, another meaningless rant.
anyway, edwards makes me more likely to vote for kerry. though, to be honest, the chances of me throwing away another vote in an effort to prevent bush's appointment are nonexistent. i stood in that booth during the last election and, afraid that bush might take california, i voted for gore.
and you know, i don't really have a lot against gore. i did believe that a fair electorate would have had bill bradley running against john mccain. people only voted for gore because he was the vice president. they only voted for dubya because he was the other bush's son.
the result may have been the worst fucking choices in the worst fucking political election of my adult life. or maybe i was just at my most cynical (or am i there now?). i don't know.
i couldn't have voted for nader then anyway. trapped behind the redwood curtain, there is such a dogmatic approach to social issues. everyone has to talk the same way and want the same thing and be cool with the same things that will take us to the same goals ... and on and on until it just makes you either sick or violent.
i was going to vote for harry browne, who was running on the libertarian ticket. i was a card carrying libertarian at the time. i was convinced that they were the closest thing i could find to anarchists. and i was probably right. i left the party, though, when i just began to feel disillusioned and that the leaders of the party were little more than rich fucks trying to protect their precious money. and believe me, that isn't anything romotely anarchistic in my world. so i moved on.
and i didn't even vote for browne that day. i tell people i did. but i just stood there in the booth staring down at both my ballot and the sample ballot that i had filled out ahead of time (trying to minimalize the time wasted voting).
it's funny (as i have george carlin going on about time on the television) that i prefer time to voting. but time is probably more real. i mean, time is hardly real. i think my life would be a lot better if we did not have to concern ourselves so much with the measurable time, rather than the existential experience of life, reality and the universe.
but voting is even worse. it is, of course, necessary to vote if you live under the tyranny of a government. you have to always do all that you can to take control of your life and try and make the world the way that you believe it should be (without annoying me). but even voting is doing little more that playing the game the way that you captors choose -- and not taking advantage of all of your tools to try and set yourself free.
and the real reason for my feelings as such is the dominance of the two party system. i have never felt that voting on measures and propositions and whatnot was a waste of vote. and in that i remain devout. i think that democracy is probably the closest thing that we can have to anarchy, and that public policy issues in elections are one of the few examples of democracy (i hope).
anyway, long story short (too late), i don't think that i would regret voting for the democrats as much with a kerry/edwards ticket as much as i did in 2000, but it still won't happen.
for the time being, i am feeling pretty committed to the notion that the best thing i can do right now is to try and push for an end to the two party system. and i think that voting for nader is the best way to push. so ... whatever.
all in all, i am still convinced that bush will win. but i will tell you this, i will take much pride in being a registered republican that votes for nader. and ... yeah.
