Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
The Presidential Debate
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
> From Ed Locke
>
>I do not see how I can vote for either one
>[Gore or Bush] at this point.
I tend to agree with this assessment.
If the Republicans, especially GW, would take a more principled
stance in favor of individuals retaining the right to their own
income that is earned through productive work (lower taxes and
support of capitalism), they would get my vote in spite of their
stance on abortion, because the abortion issue is not as cut and
dry as taxes -- i.e. the president seems to have a more direct
influence on tax policy versus issues such as abortion (which
has to go through the Supreme Court).
However, not voting for either candidate this election almost
guarantees Gore will be our next president. If you don't want
Gore to win the election you have to vote for Bush.
I haven't decided who will be less destructive overall and in
the long run. The two major parties are becoming more and more
indistinguishable in terms of moral / political principles (if
you can call them that with these candidates). It's like trying
to decide if you are going to choose to cross a bridge that has
dynamite strapped to it (the fuse is lit, but you can't tell if
it's a slow or a fast burning fuse) versus a bridge made of
balsa wood held together by dried animal fat -- sooner or later,
you are not going to have a bridge to cross into the future, and
it may collapse beneath you at any moment. Politics is dependent
on morality, and so long as both parties are mouthing altruism,
we have no firm bridge to stand on.
