Damian Gerow wrote:
Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil than the current president.
THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother voting?
After the events involving Vince Foster, Lon "It was self defense, she threatened me with her baby" Hioruchi(sp?), Janet Reno, and Monicagate, Dubbya Jr. seemed the lesser of two evils. Until 9.11.2001. At that point, Gore clearly became the lesser of two evils, but by that time, it was far too late to see it.
How much of the public knew about the connections to Haliburton before election day? How much of the public knew about the Project for a New American Century? How much of the public knew about USA PATRIOT ACT and it's sequel?
What's missing is some sort of vote out of office mechanism, a big great "Undo" vote as it were. There are no guarantees that if you vote for Scumbag #1 that s/he'll be less of a scumbag that Scumbag #2.
When more than half the country doesn't want to do something, it shouldn't be done just because congress and POTUS decides it's in their pocketbook's interest, but where's the mechanism to stop it?
Where's the recall vote? Where's the oversight committee that says "When you ran for office you promised X,Y,Z and you're half in your term and haven't delivered."
Where's the "I want X% of my dollars to go to this issue, and 0% to go to that one" option?
Elections where you only chose between evil #1 and evil #2, are an ironic joke, and the ones laughing their way to the bank aren't those with your interests in mind.
