It occurs to me that i will be able to vote in the 2004 Presidential election.

[hermionesviolin]

(thanks pallidamors)

This means that after i get back from England i should find out who all the candidates are and look into them.

I'm troubled that Dick Gephardt's website doesn't address his frightening statement that "When I'm President we'll give Executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day" (Rainbow-Push Rally, June 22, 203). (Eugene Volokh blogged about it and Gephardt's office gave an unsatisfactory response.)

I remember reading about Howard Dean in The Advocate a while back, though i also remember Andrew Sullivan later blogging about not being a fan of him.

And i know a lot of the conservative bloggers dislike John Kerrry.

Can you tell i haven't been paying much attention so far?

Feel free to pimp the candidates of your choice below (and of course throughout your own journal as much as you desire), though we know of course i have to be difficult and investigate every single candidate when i get the chance.

[Edit to add that it just occurred to me that this means i will end up posting about just where i stand on all the issues, because i'll have to go through all the candidates' platforms. Gee, let's see how many people i end up alienating.]

Comments

[zzrg.livejournal.com]

There's this incredible conceit that particular parties or platforms are "wrong" or "stupid."

Hmm, that is my problem with most political parties actually and for that matter, most political debating that goes on. For that matter, it is a social problem as well. Given the average American's education, attention span, and interest level; it is much more economical to campaign on the basis that your opponent is stupid, stupid, stupid, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Convictions are holding strongly to your beliefs, not blindly clinging to them.

[trijinx.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

I think respect would go a long way on both the street and Capitol Hill. Deciding that one's opponents are stupid jerks promotes partisan rancor, which in turn blocks progress. As fun as it might be to dismiss those you disagree with, saying that however many millions of people are wrong is obviously problematic and untrue. Granted some people blindly cling to their beliefs as you pointed out, but that happens on both sides of the political spectrum; there are morons and geniuses on the left and the right.

Not sure entirely where I'm going with this, just ranting I guess. :-)

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

*nods* Nothing makes me want to dissociate myself from (and more generally write off) someone like their writing off someone else (and tossing off insults and generalizations). How much better the world would be if people tried to put themselves in other people's places instead of being so dismissive.

[trijinx.livejournal.com]

How much better the world would be if people tried to put themselves in other people's places instead of being so dismissive.

Dismissing = easy.
Thinking = hard.

As such, one method is far more popular than the other.

Have fun in England!

[zzrg.livejournal.com]

You're interesting even when you are not going anywhere in particular. (And you kept reading even after I used 'for that matter" in two consecutive sentences.)

When I said "Convictions are holding strongly to your beliefs, not blindly clinging to them." It was largely in response to the excessively pious, mandate from heaven, attitude shown by all political parties. They make a virtue out of the fact that they will not even consider alternative points of view.