(no subject)
May. 12th, 2004 05:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rain_gryphonSo, the candidate quiz thingie at http://www.issues2000.org/quizeng/XPresMatch2004/start.asp tells me that I want to vote for Joe Lieberman, but I knew that already :P
*****
The Giant Brain of Mars!!!
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/05/05/
*****
The Giant Brain of Mars!!!
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/05/05/
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 04:23 am (UTC)Some of the problem seems to stem from the issues they didn't touch. Lieberman's very strongly in support of censoring the internet, whereas Bush isn't (though unfortunately, Ashcroft is).
Another problem, though, is the contortions they apparently went through to force the candidates' "answers" to fit where they apparently felt they should fit. Topic 3, Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws, they listed Lieberman's views on expanding hate crime laws no less than 4 times in order to turn his position to "strongly supports." He's in favor of prohibiting same-sex marriage; that's weakly supports at best, if not no opinion or opposes. In Topic 17, Seek UN approval for military action, they listed Bush as "no opinion," apparently on the basis that supporting aid for poor countries and trade with Russia, China, and India somehow constitutes approval for turning America's ability to defend itself over to the UN.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 10:38 pm (UTC)Well, he might be very strongly in favour of digging a hole in the ocean too, but that doesn't mean he's going to see any results. Even the President needs a hobby.
The 2000 election was a really annoying one for me, since I didn't like either candidate (Gore strikes me as a whining incompetent married to a morality Nazi; and I expected Bush to be as passive and spineless as his father), but both Cheney and Lieberman are men I could enthusiastically support. Actually, I *want* Barry Goldwater in the White House, but death seems to have put a damper on his career.
Bush amazed and gratified me, for the first couple years at least. I'm starting to think that the critics are correct, though, and that overthrowing the Hussein government was the limit of his ambitions. Iran's apparently going to be allowed to pursue their nuclear program with only token inspections by the UN, and there's been little if any tangible action taken towards either reforming or suppressing Islam in the United States. Even the *French* are outdoing us there. Bush seems more like his father every day.
It looks to me like no matter which one we elect, we're going to end up with an internationalist. Kerry makes no secret of it, and Bush, in marked contrast to his earlier burst of leadership, now seems unwilling to act unilaterally. Since we're going to get about the same thing either way, I'd just as soon have the one whose personality doesn't seem to alienate the Europeans. That'd be Kerry.
That being said, I'm still undecided. It's much like 2000 again, in that each candidate seems equally undesirable.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 10:59 am (UTC)I think (hope?) that's just an election year thing, and he'll get better about it again if re-elected.
Personally, I wish the Libertarian party would win one finally. But if wishes were horses...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 03:01 pm (UTC)I'm not apparently terribly well-aligned with any of the bunch, though - top was Carol Moseley-Braun, with 70/35, Kucinich and Kerry, both at 55/45.
(Have *any* of the prospective hopefuls actually come out in favor of gender-neutral marriage? The best available seems to be a fairly widespread "we favor leaving it to the individual states". Still, a little better than the current situation, though perhaps Bush's actions will serve to precipitate the issue positively, as it seems to have done in a few locations thus far)