Ruckus Central
(Clockwise from Top Left: Bush, Kerry, Nader, Mickey Mouse)
Last Updated: 9/16/2004
The Word On The Streets
Yes. It's been months, possibly weeks since the last update. But unless you asked me to update it,
then you really can't complain. Kev Kreiser thusly has full whining priveleges.
Well there's no question about what story has been the prime issue in the United States since the
beginning of the summer. But I'm simply not going to write about Britney Spears new fiance and the
murky details surrounding their shady relationship. So pay attention, my faithful Ruckus Centralites,
as I give you my discourse on:
Why Not To Vote
Well the hip thing these days is supposedly to exercise your democratic rights and "Rock The Vote."
All around the media (especially the more liberal outlets geared towards the younger generations),
people are being urged to register, get out to the voting booths and kick George Bush out of the
bully pulpit. It's "every citizens responsibility" to vote, it's an "American Privelege," blah, blah
blah, blah blah. Pure hogwash. MTV would have you believe you're wielding some supernatural power by
pulling that voting lever (or for the more Floridian types, punching a chad). If you think you're in
charge, you couldn't be wronger. Nor more wrong, depending on how well-versed you are in English
grammar.
The idea of a democracy is not something singular to the United States, although the way our children
are fed ultra-patriotic propaganda in school and on television, many might think that we are
the only country where the people select the leaders. Many of you know that Democracies and Republics
have been around since antiquity (we have Ridley Scott to thank for teaching this to many). In fact,
Democracy is Greek for "People Government," which, ironically sounds more communist than any
thing. What sets the United States apart from other democracies is that elections are held on all
levels of government, from local town and city councils, to state legislatures/executive branches and
of course the Federal government comprised of Congress and the Presidency. The people are in control
around here, and we like to think we're the only place where that is true.
But what people are in control? If you say the factory workers, the police and firemen, the teachers,
the carpenters, the office drones, the college students, the waiters and waitresses, the taxi cab
drivers...well if you said these hard-working stalwart Americans were in control of who goes in and
out of the government, you'd be wrong. True, they vote. Just about anyone can vote if they want.
After a whole bunch of (justified) complaining, suffrage that was initially reserved only for 21-year
old white men was then shared by blacks, women, and finally those 18 years and older. Of course you
can't vote if you're not an American Citizen, if you're a convicted felon, or if you watch more than
3 hours of television a day (oh if only that were true). But voting for a candidate has an extremely
limited scope of power when you look at the big picture. What it really all comes down to is money.
Does anyone remember the democratic primaries from this winter? There was a field of varied
candidates trying to win the vote from the American public in order to get a chance to challenge
Dubya this fall. Most notable among those candidates were John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean,
Wesley Clark (who I like to call "Wes"), Joe Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt and Al
Sharpton. There were others too, but everyone knew they didn't stand a chance. Carol Moseley Braun
may have had some good ideas, but honestly, who is going to elect a black woman to be president of
the United States in 2004? Not a knock on her, just a knock on society. Frontrunners for the race
changed often, going from Lieberman to Gephardt to Kerry to Dean. At a time in December, it looked
like Howard Dean was a sure bet to win the primary. He was the first of any candidate in any race to
utilize the power of Al Gore's internet (you think Al Gore would have been the first?) to raise funds
for his election campaign. With more money than anyone else and arguably the best ideas, he had a
commanding lead in the polls.
Then the Iowa caususes came. The first vote of all the states, the Iowa caucuses give the candidates
a good idea of what their chances are in the rest of the race. In an upset victory, John Kerry won
the Iowa caucuses, and shock to most, since Dean was forcast to win. It shook up the race. Gephardt
immediately dropped out, and if a weak showing was on the horizon for the upcoming New Hampshire
primaries, other candidates conceded that they too may have to drop out soon. Howard Dean, stunned by
a third place showing in Iowa, mustered a whole lot of enthusiasm, which he was known for, in a
frantic tirade which was unforunately caught on tape and played over and over and over on CNN, MSNBC
and Fox News. The media labeled him a "madman" and spent every free moment ridiculing him. As a
result, his whole campaign stumbled and he never won a state. Other candidates were forced to drop
out within the month because of limited funds. Even though more than 75% of the states still had to
vote, the democratic primary was down to a three man race between John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard
Dean. John Kerry had the fortune of being labeled "presidential" by the media, and John Edwards had a
"southern charm and charisma." Meanwhile, Dean was just a madman. Who do you think the people voted
for? Who do you think got the most campaign donations?
Well we all know how the Democratic Primaries ended. Kerry, a tall, lean, grave-looking senator from
Massachusetts won strictly on his looks. "He looks like a president." That line was printed in
newspapers and uttered on air more often than you could hear Howard Dean yell "YEAHHHHHHHHHH!". Dean
was too short (and too short-tempered) and John Edwards was too boyish. But man, that John Kerry, he
looks like a president. Couldn't you just see him on a 30-dollar bill? Speaking of money, since when
is money a requirement to become president? Last I heard, in this land of opporunity, anyone had the
chance to become president. Starting with Gephardt, every candidate dropped out of the primary way
before the end simply because they lost all their funds and could no longer run a national campaign.
John Kerry, favored by the media to win, started rolling in the dough. Most of these funds come from
corporate donors - the ones who have the money. Certainly there were individual contributions, but
Howard Dean had more individual supporters than anyone. Howard Dean had a passionate following and
many people from all walks of life donated time and money. Kerry didn't have this and most of his
money he got from wealthy investors.
Fast forward to the presidential campaign. We have three major choices. Well, three choices, two
major ones. Ralph Nader is just a Connecticut muckracker who is no more qualified to drive an old
chevrolet than he is to run the United States. Sad thing is, he's being bullied and intimidated by
Democrats who don't want him to run because they think he will cost John Kerry the election, just
like he cost Al Gore the election in 2000. I'm sorry, but we all know how dumb George W. Bush is, and
if you can't beat him in an election than you really don't deserve to be president. Calling for a
legitimate third party candidate not to run puts the democratic process (if there is such a thing) at
a grave risk. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves at this one. The Democrats do have a
point of course, because Nader would never, ever win the election. And the reason why is simple: he
is a loud opponent of corporate greed and corporate misgivings, which automatically writes him off
the list of any potential corporate donors. Without that money rolling in, he can't place ads, he
can't hire lawyers to sue the opponents for their ads, and he can't buy a snazzy suit. (See above
picture.)
Back to the issue of money. According to the FEC website, Bush has spent over $207 million, and Kerry
has spent over $188 million. They each also have over $100 million in cash on hand (read - more money
to spend) and also over $400,000 in debt for Dubya and $300,000 for Flip-flop. (Nader, on the other
hand, has spent just over $2 million.) And since Bush and Kerry are members of the two main parties,
they also qualify for roughly $76 million in federal funds, courtesy of yours and my tax dollars.
(Nader, as a Reform Party Candidate, does not qualify.) Do these figures blow anyone else's mind?
These men are spending money that are many multiples of people's annual sallaries. But instead
of being up in arms about reforming the campaign finance laws, we're out with placards labeling Bush
a killer (or a dauntless leader), and Kerry incoherent (or a much-needed change). If we could somehow
pool all this money together, there'd be enough to give everyone in the country a dollar...almost.
Perhaps more appropriately, it could be used to fund George Bush's disastrous "No Child Left Behind
Act," the only supporters of which seem to come from the White House - certainly not from the
nation's public schools. Or it could be invested into Social Security. My point is, there are too
many problems that we could be throwing this money at, but instead half of it is spent on a losing
campaign, and the other half on a person who didn't have any business spending it all in the first
place.
So the money has been wasted on stubborn rhetoric spewed from George Bush's mouth and an uninspired
campaign on the behalf of John Kerry. Bush's platform goes like this: "I'm the leader of a vulnerable
nation in a troubled world, and if you don't vote for me, we'll all be nuked. (Of course, George w.
Bush was at the helm when September 11th did happen, so I'm not sure where he gets his
logic.) My opponent has had eight different opinions about the war, and will say anything to get
elected." Kerry's goes like this: "I was a Vietnam war hero, and Iraq is like Vietnam, so vote for
me. Nevermind that I brought down the morale of soldiers everywhere after I got home. George Bush
dodged the National Guard, so I must be the better candidate. I don't have any plans to fix any of
the problems that Bush has caused, but I owe a lot of people a lot of favors. Plus I look like a
president." They both have their points, but they both look ridiculous. George W. Bush has led us
into a horribly fought war (with good intentions, no doubt, but horrible timing and even more
horrible planning) and probably gave us false information in the process. Over a thousand Americans
and even more Iraqis (and we're supposedly there to liberate them?) have been killed, and there's no
end in sight. Kerry, on the other hand, voted for the war, then voted against money to fund it, then
said he would have supported the war no matter what then said that if he was president that he
wouldn't have allowed it. Clearly neither man has a plan to end the war or even alleviate the
problems.
The other big issue is, of course, the economy. Bush's theories say that his tax cuts will give
businesses the incentive to create jobs. Kerry says that the tax cuts are only for the wealthy and
will only benefit the very rich. Of course neither candidate would have any idea how to talk to an
actual American who didn't grow up on a yacht or have 7-figure stock holdings, both growing up as
bratty children of privelege, so really we can discount either man's plan to bring back the almighty
dollar to the common American. Outsourcing jobs gets rid of low-paying positions that many Americans
wouldn't want in the first place, paving the way for higher-paying high-tech jobs. Kerry says it's
ruining the economy; Bush pretends it doesn't even exist. It has a bad rap of course, when there are
factory workers in Ohio without jobs but everytime the call up Gateway to fix their shitty computers,
an Indian named Sanjay (or Pete, if they've had "americanization training") picks up on the other
end. But truthfully, if businesses have the incentive to grow, they'll expand and provide more shitty
jobs to the people. Such is the way of capitalism.
The most interesting aspect of John Kerry's campaign is the huge Anti-Bush faction in this country.
Never before has a candidates chances of winning hinged so tremendously on (part of) the electorate's
desire to oust the incumbent. True, attacks are always made on sitting first-term presidents, but
Kerry owes his whole campaign to all the people who hate Bush so much that they would do anything to
help Kerry win. Nobody wants Kerry to win, they just want "Anyone But Bush." I'm sure you've seen
these clever, pro-democracy bumper stickers. Great campaign man, awesome. Win the war on terror,
straighten out the economy. Anyone but Bush can do it!
The bottom line is thusly: Bush and Kerry are spending tremendous amounts of money on a schoolyard
tiff being fought through television commercials and public appearance soundbytes. Other candidates
from other parties don't stand a chance because they don't have the fundage. Back in the day, it was
the candidate who stood for the better ideas. Now, it's who's got the deeper pockets. Most
dangerously (speaking of pockets), the candidates are in the pockets of their corporate donors.
Environmental groups hate Bush because of his pro-Energy policies, in place strictly because of the
favors he owes to Big Oil for getting him into the office. John Kerry's first task as president will
be to make ketchup a required condiment in all public school lunches, just because of all the money
he got from his wife's influential business ties. The point is that these public servants, whoever
they may be after January 22nd, are not working for the public. They are working for whoever got them
there, and until we change the system, it will always be so.
So - don't vote this year. In fact, don't vote until there is a candidate that deserves it. For now,
it will always be a Democrat or a Republican, which is unfortunate because . Actually, let me rescind
that statement. Vote in your local elections. They are much more democratic in nature, and the better
candidate usually wins. Even gubernatorial elections are relatively pure (despite the John Rowland
debacle in Connecticut) - look at what happened in California when the people grew tired of Gray
Davis. Maybe what we need is a cold, lifeless Terminator to rule the country. Back to not voting - if
you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and a handful of other states, you already know that John
Kerry is going to win your state. (We have the media to thank for this.) Similarly, other states have
Bush projected as their easy winner. So there is absolutely no point in voting in these states
because we already know what the outcome is going to be. If you live in one of the so-called
"Battleground" states, among them Ohio, New Mexico and of course Florida, then it's a different
story. But when you go to the voting booths this fall, keep in mind that you really had no say in
who's name got posted up on that wall. Bring back the write-in ballot and finally put Mickey Mouse in
the office.
Thusly ends my political tirade. In cross-country driving news, Ashley and I recently drove from
Connecticut to California and back. Since I spent most of my time writing this political manifesto
this week, look for the story about our trip next week...hopefully. Here is a picture of us at Arches
National Park in Utah, one of the coolest places on our trip.
That is it for now, make sure to check out the other pages for updates!
Lataz,
-Pauly
The Links
The Pumpkin Head Videos
Funny Stories
Music (Song Of The Week!)
Kreiserisms
Biography
Pally's Page!
New Band Page
Email Me
The Cottage Schedule
