THE UGLY TRUTH, PART II

Since I just read my last Soapbox again, and it's only a few days until the election, I suppose it's about time to give an updated (and last-minute) opinion of what's about to happen in politics-land.

I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with my overall opinion from last time -- that Bush should/will be re-elected. Notice that steadfast "pretty sure" I laid on you? That's for a reason. I don't feel as strongly as I did before about that opinion, mostly based on what I've seen (or not seen) since then, as well as the debates.

After a rigorous debate with a good friend of mine a few days ago, our opinions pretty much boiled down to a few basics (as many debates often are): He: "Anybody but Bush" is a great slogan. Bush has been, and will continue to be, a horrible and untrustworthy President. Kerry is a good man and will be a better President than Bush. Me: Kerry may be a better President than Bush, but not better enough to warrant the instability of the transition, and the chaos of indecision.

Here's a viable (if not a bit simplistic) analogy: I believe, and if you ask most cops, more car accidents are cause by driver indecision than by actual speeding. When you are in control of a potentially deadly vehicle (or nation, if you're a president), trying to solve a difficult problem like merging or navigating rush hour traffic (or controlling terrorism), the best course of action is one of cautious resolution. Bush has the "resolute" part down pat -- the "cautious", maybe not so much. In rush hour traffic, the idiot who is constantly slamming on the brakes is more likely to cause an accident than the idiot who is driving too fast. The same goes for a wartime presidency -- if no one knows (or at least thinks they know) exactly where you stand, then no one knows what to expect from you, so both parties are constantly cat-and-mousing, and little progress is made, and success is random and almost accidental. But if your position is clearly asserted (even if it's not 100% right), then everyone involved knows what they're dealing with, and strategies, amendments, corrections, and eventually progress is much more smoothly achieved. Think how smoothly traffic would flow if there wasn't some knucklehead weaving in and out trying to find the lane going 1 mph faster than the other lanes, or some fool constantly speeding up, tailgating, then slamming on his brakes. That's what a Kerry presidency would be like -- constant change, always rethinking, always trying to jockey for position, risking all kinds of lives and putting people in danger, all for the possibility that we might get to our destination about, oh, 2 minutes faster. And maybe we would -- but is it worth the risk? And maybe Kerry would be a slightly better President -- but is it worth the risk?

I was in Europe for the second presidential debates, as well as the V.P. debate, which was at least as much, if not more, heavily covered over there than here. And we all know how the Euros feel about Bush (they hate him, in case you didn't know -- especially in Spain, where I was), so the election was a fairly common topic of conversation. The general consensus was about the same as here: "Any change from Bush is good, even if it's just a little." Even in the first newspaper interview I did, the very first day, I was asked what I thought about the election, and who I thought would win. All I could say was, "I live in Texas, and Bush will win Texas no matter what I think, so my vote, one way or the other, is pretty much irrelevant." Whew. I gave this answer, realizing after the fact that there was no way I could explain the American electoral college procedure in 2 minutes to a person who spoke absolutely no English, translated by a person who spoke much better but still not perfect English. Plus it was a music interview.

What I also couldn't explain at the time was the difference in American and European politics -- in a European country, when government leadership changes parties, everything drastically changes. Laws, policies, attitudes, certain tangible things in everyone's daily life are different, from pay to travel to laws on alcohol consumption. In America, very little changes in the day-to-day life of its citizens when a new President is elected, even if it's from a different party. No matter whether Bush or Kerry is elected, my rent will stay the same, I will still pay basically the same taxes, my food will cost the same, and I still can't buy a freaking 6-pack past midnight on a weekday -- 1 a.m. on Saturdays.

The point I have made from the beginning is that while Bush was born with a silver spoon, climbed the political ladder on Daddy's name, is entrenched with the oil companies, and has quite a few really scary and freaky people in his cabinet, Kerry is, when it's all said and done, not much better. He is a lifetime politician, which makes him immediately untrustworthy in his public promises. He is also a Senator, which means that he owes countless favors to about 20 years worth of politicians and special interests groups. He is also a Democratic Massachusetts senator, which makes him staunchly liberal -- not that I prefer staunchly conservative (like, say... a former governor of Texas), but that's the hand we're currently dealt. Most normal-thinking Americans believe that any politician on the extreme end of the liberal/conservative spectrum is a bad thing -- and they're right.

I like Kerry's eloquence, his brainpower, and I believe he has the ability to perform under on-the-spot pressure, like he showed during the debates. I don't know that either candidate actually won or lost those debates, but I know that Kerry held his own very well and performed like a man who knows how to present and argue a case -- which is something Bush is sorely lacking. Kerry performed just like a... well, a lifetime politician and former trial lawyer. However, I did expect more out of Bush, like some perspective and maturity. In the debates before his first term (especially debate #2), he actually turned me around to thinking that he's not the idiot everybody thinks he is, or that he wants everybody to think he is. He was confident, poised, good natured, and actually sounded intelligent and articulate. This time, he pretty much just seemed pissed. Pissed he was having to explain himself, pissed he was even having to run for re-election. I think it comes from a White House culture that he has made for himself -- isolation. He has such supreme confidence in himself and what he's doing, that he only listens to certain like-minded people, only speaks to friendly audiences, and pays no attention to his critics. Which, in a way, can be something to be admired -- don't we all wish we had the power and cojones to just tell everybody that disagrees with us to screw off? But, as he showed in the debates, it makes him unprepared to deal with criticism, much less able to actually accept it constructively. However, it would help to deal with it constructively if most of it was actually constructive, not politically contrived rhetoric designed solely to bring a negative light to a candidate. And that goes for both candidates.

Ê Which brings me to the whole "flip-flop" thing -- what a bunch of nonsense. If you think that's a main issue of Kerry's candidacy, you're nuts -- that's just a successful Bush campaign successfully planting seeds and a catch-phrase into our little American pea-brains. Why was "I voted for it, before I voted against it" such a big deal? Because it sounded like another catch phrase, one that Bush and all his cronies could pound into our heads. The fact is, it makes sense: Kerry voted for the right to use unilateral force, given the intelligence and "facts" they all had. Then, after evaluating what he saw as a misuse of that force, he voted against it. I know there's actually a second dimension to the issue, which is a lot for moron middle America to grasp, but it's actually a very reasonable response to the question, as well as action to have taken. I think the ability to evaluate a decision, possibly admit a mistake, and then act accordingly is an admirable quality, and one that any "thinking person" should possess. But a wartime president? The rules are a bit different.

On the same front (political attacks), the idea that people (mostly Democrats and liberals) want Bush to come out and say "This was a mistake", and "I did that wrong", is just absurd. Sure, we want our politicians (or anybody, for that matter) to show contrition when they've made mistakes. But for our politicians, it's perfectly reasonable to want that, but unreasonable to actually expect it. It's just not the way the game works -- and if the Republicans were screaming and demanding for Kerry to apologize or admit mistake for some of his actions in the past, they would have gotten the same result. So, besides the fact that we can't reasonably expect Bush to come out and say "Iraq was a mistake", I believe he and his camp made a blunder by hemming and hawing on the issue, when they could have said one thing to diffuse it: "It's too early to tell yet." It's true -- you can't judge whether a war like this, an undertaking of this magnitude, unseating a brutal long-time dictator and trying to implement a sane government, in just a couple of years. Sure it's ugly, people are getting killed, and some of our tactics did not go as planned. But there is progress being made in the vast non-terrorist areas of Iraq (terrorists only hold about 10% of the country, but they make 100% of the news from there because it's good TV), and with constant pressure the terrorist cities will eventually fall. But if we don't finish the job, Iraq will fall into the hands of religious extremists and violent sociopaths, and will become worse than the Iran of the '70's and the Afghanistan of the '90's. The Bush answer to the "apology/mistake" question is that if Iraq becomes a functioning, reasonably governed, basically democratic society, then the war was a success. If it falls into the hands of the terrorists and ultimately a dictator worse than Saddam Hussein, then the war was a mistake. But there is no way to answer whether Iraq was a mistake or not for several more years. In the sports world, that's called "scoreboard": If you have more points than the other team, you win. If you have less, you lose. But you can't call a winner or loser until the game has been played.

To me, here's one of the very biggest problems of Bush's presidency, as well as this campaign -- he has great difficulty communicating his ideas, especially to a large audience who may or may not already like him. If you're a Texan, know those traditional "cowboy mentality" Texans, know how they think and communicate, then you can pretty much get what he's trying to say -- he sounds resolute, clear on his agenda, and able to accomplish his goals. But to everybody else, he just tends to sound like a redneck knucklehead, especially when he feels passionately about something and is improvising speech. I'm sure speaking off-record and one-on-one, or to a small group, he is able to make his points very clear, with little ambiguity. Really, even when heÕs giving a pre-written speech, that's one thing no one's ever complained about -- you definitely know where he stands on an issue, and it seems to come straight from his pea-pickin' little heart, if not his pea-sized brain.

Actually, I don't think the man's a total idiot, no matter what those who hate him think, or what he wants to present as his public persona. I think he doesn't do much to tone down that public perception, because he knows that the main part of his constituency are folks who like that straight-talkin', straight-shootin', cowboy attitude, all them fancy words and that high-fallutin' book-learnin' be damned. But Yale has had sons and daughters of dignitaries, including sons of (at the time) U.S. Congressmen (Bush graduated from Yale in 1968. His father entered the House Of Rep. in 1967), and Yale has dozens of them , every single year. So I don't think he got a free pass to graduate from an Ivy League school -- you have to actually be pretty damn smart, and you definitely can't be a mental midget to graduate from Yale, no matter who's son you are.

That said, nobody's voting for Bush for his brains. One of the things he's said that has put him in the most favor to me, is when asked about how unpopular he is in Europe, and to many Americans, he says "I didn't come here to make friends. I came here to get things accomplished." What an un-politician thing to say -- although not totally, I guess, given what I just said about the "straight-shootin'" perception of his base constituency. But to a true-blue life-long politician (like John Kerry), it's all about making friends. Friends to take favors from, friends to give favors to, and, most importantly, friends to elect and re-elect you. Kerry has been everybody's best friend on this campaign -- he's promised improvement for the vast middle class, the poor, immigrants, minorities, women, left-handed dentists, small businesses, and even the upper class and big business through "improved regulation" to make up for raising their tax burden. But if we've all learned anything in life (and basic physics), is that with a finite supply of things to offer, you can't give something to one person without taking from another -- basically, you can't please all the people all the time. He's played the perfect politician/lawyer tactic. If you vote for me, you win, everybody wins, and nobody loses. This is why the Republicans seized on Kerry's "global test" comment -- they realize that while making friends and building consensus is important and good, it's not important enough to warrant indecision or possibly compromising safety. On another point: though "Grandpa" Cheney was blasted for saying that if Kerry is president, another terrorist attack is almost certain, I think there may be some truth in that. I don't think it's that extreme, not "certain" that we will be attacked at all if Kerry's president. But I do think the instability of completely changing leadership, including cabinet members, their staffs, the overall agenda changing, and Kerry attempting to right every wrong in America and in the world, including re-making friends with countries like France, will increase the chance, if only slightly, of giving terrorists trying to kill us a slight advantage. And personally, even a moment of weakness, just a temporary chink in the armor, is more of a chance than I'm willing to concede.

One other small problem with a Kerry presidency -- for the first 2 years he would be presiding over a Republican House and Senate. So all those 8 million promises he's made during the campaign, to America and the world, have virtually no chance of passing. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

That said, there is one good reason to vote for Kerry, and it's a biggie -- stem cell research. The only reason Bush is against it is because the religious right zealots, which are a huge part of the Republican base, are against it. So, if he wants to get reelected, he has no choice. Kerry, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem. The advancement of stem-cell research would be such a huge advance for society in general. With Kerry as president, a cure for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and many other diseases of that kind -- which torture the afflicted and terrorize the rest of us -- could come in a couple of years. With Bush as president, barring a real showing of guts on his part (which actually isn't out of character for him), those cures wonÕt happen for at least 4 years. I'm against voting for any candidate based on just one issue, but if I had to pick, I'd consider going with Kerry just because of that one.

Another pretty good reason to vote for Kerry would be the promotion of hybrid cars, since he doesn't have the loyalty to the oil business like Bush. As I've said before, cutting our dependence on oil is the only way to rid ourselves of this constant Middle East turmoil. But, you gotta take your pick here -- Kerry has as much loyalty to big lawyers and special interest groups as Bush does to oil and big business. Since Kerry is a lifetime New England politician and lawyer, he owes as many back-room favors to those groups as Bush did to his. With Kerry as president, reform on frivolous lawsuits (one of our very biggest domestic problems) and legal loopholes will almost certainly never happen. Myself, if the U.S. has to pick an industry to try and dominate, I'd rather have oil than lawyers. God, I think I need to take a shower now. Just thinking about that makes me feel all icky.

All right, enough of this. I just looked back over this behemoth of a Soapbox, and realized that this is all just more rhetoric. It really all boils down to two simple questions:

1) Do you like, and therefore believe, Bush more or Kerry more? In that "rigorous debate" with my friend that I spoke of before, I realized that, shallow as it sounds, it really boils down to that. If you like and believe a candidate, you believe he will at least try to do what he says he will do. If you like and believe the guy, you'll believe all the good things written and said about him, and you'll believe all the bad things about the other guy.

2) Do you believe 9/11 changed everything? If you believe and understand that 9/11 was an attack on innocent people, on our mainland, different from Pearl Harbor, unprecedented in our history, and calls for unprecedented measures, like the rolling back of some civil rights and extraordinary military spending, then you're for Bush. If you believe that 9/11 caused an already declining economy to fall into a full-blown recession, and that it is now on it's way back up overall, then you're for Bush. If you believe that every single one of our civil rights, and every law and regulation attached to them, are America's most precious commodity, possibly even more important than a feeling of insecurity for the lives of thousands of innocent people, then you're for Kerry. If you believe that taking every precaution to make the very "most right" decision on foreign policy, even if it means perceived indecision and weakness to both our enemies and our allies, is of utmost importance, then you're for Kerry. If you believe in being resolute at the possible expense of being prudent, then you're for Bush. If you believe in prudence at the possible expense of resolution, then you're for Kerry.

I think both Bush and Kerry are "good men", who are trying to do what they feel is best for the country. I also believe that both men are basically political moderates, who have to return favors and appeal to their bases to get elected. Bush is probably a bit more cautious than he lets on, and Kerry more ballsy. Or, as many Americans see it, the fine folks of South Park hit in right on the head in their last episode, which featured a debate and election between (literally) a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich". I don't know if either candidate is as bad as all that, but I do see the point -- you can't really get behind either guy. Both have distinctly different personalities and methods, even if the end result may end up basically the same after the election -- we'll still be in Iraq, we'll still think we pay too much in taxes, and we'll still be overworked and underpaid. But one major thing could change depending on who is president -- our sense of security, if not the very lives of us and our friends and families. And if you understand how our country functions, you know that just the mere perception of uncertainty and insecurity can have major negative repercussions on our economy, not to mention the way we all feel personally and as a nation.

It's a shame that in an election as polarizing as this, which may be the most important election of our generation, we don't have better candidates to pick from. But, here we are, and we gotta pick one. Taking all the good and bad things about both candidates into consideration, considering the times in which we now live, I'm going with the guy who will share my own personal views on what I feel is our most important issue -- the guy that's most likely to keep our buildings vertical and our citizens alive to enjoy the life we're fighting for.