29 July 2003

On the heels of my last rant about the U.S. government selling futures on terror attacks, I was reading an article in The Village Voice about a Republican sweep in the 2004 elections.  Now before some people start calling me a liberal crybaby, I am a registered Republican.  But there are a few issues I have with the U.S. political system.

First of all, we only have two parties.  "What about the Liberterians?"  Yeah, what about 'em?  The Tampa Bay Devil Rays of the political landscape.  Blah.  Unfortunately, whether it's because Americans are too stupid to be able to pick between more than two parties or what the reason is, that's it.  Two.  You're either a Democrat or a Republican.  Here's the fence, pick a side.

Now, who's to blame for the somewhat dire straits that this country seems to be in?  Economically, the Democrats would blame the Republicans.  However, the downward spiral following the boom of the '90s happened with Billy Bob Clinton in office.  So, Mr. GOP could argue that he simply inherited a bad deal.  Kind of like your wife running up the credit cards and then blaming you for being in debt.  How about this whole al Qaeda thing?  You could argue, Mr. Donkey, that W has been inept in getting bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Saddam, and every day that goes that none of those guys are caught makes the U.S. appear more and more foolish.  However, who was the guy that was all but given Osama in a paper bag and said, "No, that's OK, forget it"?  Yessirreeee, you guessed it, Billy Bob!  They could have had the cocksucker five years ago, but ol' smoke-my-pole declined the offer.

That being said, do I think the Republicans are the smartest group of political pundits to wield power since the reign of the Caesars?  Fuck no.  The Republicans are the smarter of two retards.  They only drool on themselves a little at the dinner table.  However, they are the better of two evils.  Which brings up this point:  what happens when the Democrats die out?

Because let's face it, if they get stomped like a narc at a Sturgis rally this next election, tag their toe and close the drawer, the body's cold.  Bush's approval rating is below 60 percent.  U.S. troops can't maintain any kind of civility in Iraq, soldiers are being killed every day, and yeah, they got the sons, but Daddy Saddam is still running around.  Probably having lunch with bin Laden.  The economy doesn't seem to want to get any kind of forward momentum.  Every time it sounds like it might, out comes a jobless report or a CPI or retail sales forecast that sends stockbrokers running for the sell booths like Rosie O'Donnell to an all-you-can-eat restaurant on half-off Tuesdays.  Let's not even bring up the constant accusations and denials of using false information to manipulate public support for the Iraq invasion.  Do I think they should have done it?  Yes, WMDs or no.  But, that doesn't mean they should have made shit up, either.  The Democrats have more things to point to than they have since 1976.  If they lose more seats, they might as well paint their noses red and take the show under a tent.

But then what?  A one-party system?  We just deposed one of those, didn't we?  Is the future of American politics the GOP in charge with the remnants of the Democratic party and the other fringe lunatics snipping at the heels of the Republicans like little dogs chasing the mailman?  Because while I am a registered Republican, I don't necessarily follow party line on everything like an automaton.

So does it make me a "bad American" if I say I don't like something?  No.  It makes me human.  This country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal, ruled by a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Unfortunately, if that were true, the wrong guy's on Pennsylvania Avenue.  Remember, Gore won the popular vote outright, Florida or not.  However, the electoral college system gave it to Bush in one of the most ridiculous examples of American politics since the Hayes Compromise of 1877.  Do I think Gore would have handled things better?  No.  Worse?  Maybe.  Does that mean that I approve of Bush's handling of everything?  No.  Did he handle post-September 11th well?  Yes.  I think he stumbled over his own dick on Iraq on about fifty different instances, though.  His reasoning for wanting Saddam gone was the equivalent of mom saying, "Because I said so, that's why."  Do I think Bush should be impeached, as was suggested last week, if it is discovered that he intentionally gave misleading information to the public in order to gain support for the invasion?  Let me put it this way:  I was fired from a federal job because I didn't write down that five years ago I was pulled over because of an outstanding traffic ticket.  If that's a "violation of the public trust," what's lying to millions of people in order to go to war?

And yes, I supported the war in Iraq, support which is on this website (Nuke 'Em, Nuke 'Em, Nuke 'Em).  I still support our presence.  But can I criticize how we have handled the peace and still be a good American?  Yes.  This country has a long history of winning wars and following it up with losing the peace.

Any faith I had in the political process in Washington has gone the way of the Dodo bird.  The insane asylum is officially being run by the patients.  I just hope I get to die of natural causes.  These days, that's all it seems anyone can ask for.