Boy, there's a lot of interesting campaigns coming up this fall. Unfortunately, just not the one for president.

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but it's been a month since Al Gore and George W. Bush surfaced as the frontrunners in the campaign, and our excitement shows no sign of starting. This election seems to be inexorably building into a cavalcade of galloping mediocrity, with both Bush and Gore stampeding toward the center, each trying to pretend to be something he's not when he's never really made it clear what he actually is in the first place.

But tempting as it is to hit the political snooze button until Election Day, it might behoove us to find out the difference between Tweedlebush and Tweedlegore. What is the major issue in this race? That's easy. It's deciding which one of these second-stringers can lead us for the next four years without ****ing it up until we eventually get to see some real A-list candidates for a goddamn change.

Consider our lack of choices. Let's put George W. Bush under the microscope first. Bush promises to spend an additional 13 billion dollars on education. OK, George, that covers you. Now what about the rest of the country?

George W. also wants to enact the most comprehensive overhaul of Social Security since the Great Depression. He wants workers to have the freedom to invest their own Social Security money in the stock market. Hey, most people can't balance a ****ing checkbook, let alone invest in their future. Anyone who has seen the little counter on the screen that shows you how many pieces of Joan Rivers' jewelry is being bought on the Home Shopping Network knows people cannot be trusted with their own money.

And when it comes to international affairs, well, let's just say Bush discusses foreign policy in that same uncomprehending way that parents of teenagers talk about their kids' favorite bands. His eyes become more glazed over than a Krispy Kreme when Brando's workin' the spray gun.

And Bush's embrace of traditional Democratic issues like education and health care are said to be examples of his compassionate conservatism. In reality, they are examples of the craven behavior of a human baloney-on-white-with-Miracle-Whip sandwich, who will say anything to get elected. And I don't mean that in a good way.

And then there's Al Gore, "Mr. Smith Stays in Washington." Now while Gore is a major supporter of China being made a member of the World Trade Organization, he has promised that if elected president, he would "prod" China on human rights abuses. That's good, Al. You know, lost and found just called, and your ***** still haven't turned up yet.

Gore would come down hard on gun ownership, calling for photo licensing for all handgun purchases at a government office, similar to what we currently have at the DMV. Yeah, super notion there, Al. Because so many times I have been waiting in a long line with a lot of pissed off people at the DMV and thought to myself, "You know what would make things go a lot smoother here? Guns."

Now, both men are equally adept at insulting our intelligence. Last week, for example, at a fundraiser in Los Angeles that raised nearly $3 million for his campaign, Al Gore said he was committed to making life easier in the inner cities. Yeah, but apparently not so committed that he would turn that $3 million over to a charity that does just that. Do you realize Bush and Gore are spending more on telling us how they plan to fight poverty than they will actually spend on fighting it once they get elected?

But these are the guys we deserve. The average American refuses to invest a few minutes a day in actually picking up the newspaper and reading, and the result is that politicians who want our attention have to raise huge amounts of money to buy soundbite TV advertising. Look, I know it's hard to find the time to bone up on the complicated issues facing our country, but doing your duty is never easy. Look at me. I'm a busy man. I've got two kids and a job that requires at least nine hours of my time a week, 26 weeks a year, yet somehow I still find time to read up on the issues--or at least to hire people to read up on them for me. Dare you do any less?

You know, at this point in my life, I've had it with presidential candidates blowing smoke--I want them to do nothing. Treat the presidency like Homer Simpson treats his job. Come in, have a donut, take a nap and try not to burn the place down. Enough rhetorical bull**** about "meeting challenges" and "helping those who can't help themselves." Things are good, don't **** 'em up. Just sit there and don't touch anything. Be America's first 10-to-4 president. And on Fridays, you know what? Don't even come in at all.

 

Either way, better vote for Bush

RoostKing

 

I believe that Bush is the "lesser" of the EVILS

 

trx,

my goodness, very well put. i am sure, given the website you posted to, many pro-bush responses will be waiting in your e-mail box when you get home. and that's fine, from an atving/public land access standpoint. but, as we all know, there's more to it than that, eh?

george bush is not the lesser of two evils. he is one of the two "lessers" generated by our typical two-party system. republican or democrat? who's it going to be? you gotta pick one, right? every four years the republicans and democrats talk about saving the world. keep those guns from hurting people, keep those people from hurting the land, keep the land from being overrun by aliens. blah blah blah. it's really all a big game; it's certainly not government serving the interests of the public.

so, i say vote elsewhere if you want a change. try libertarian. they are for self government - novel idea, huh? remember, if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got. dig?

 

Fakie99: While that may sound like a great idea, what are the chances a libertarian would actually win the presidency? Voting for them is about like not voting at all. Bush and Gore are the only two people with a real chance of winning. We can't let Gore win, so we must vote for "the lesser of two evils," Bush. It's the only chance our sport has of surviving.

 

Given Gore's environmental "credentials," including his statement he wants to eliminate the internal combustion engine, given the arbitrary and unilateral closure of millions of acres of public lands to ATVing perpetrated by the Clinton-Gore administration:

Which candidate do you support, TRX430EX?

Tree Farmer

 

I have been gone a few days and I come back to find the discussion forums have changed for the better. This post and Retro's post have given me renewed hope that there are not just gearhead, sister-chasing(he-he, love that quote), mind numbed atver's reading and submitting post. Now to the subject at hand, I think all you need to do to is to read Al Gores book "Earth in the Balance" to see what kind of enviromental wacko he really is. Anyone who is friends with the Sierra Club is no friend of anyone who loves our sport. This group wants to ban atvs, mountain bikes, even horseback riding in our national forest. There will never be the "perfect candidate" just some who have hopefully similar views to what we have, and if there is none of those in the future that will be the day I will stop voting. Until that happens it is important for everyone to vote so our father's and grandfather's who fought for our right to have a say in our country did not do so in vain.

 

...and, sadly, that attitude is why we will never be able to govern OURSELVES again. we have grown accustomed to the government WE created dictating what we will do. we have boxed ourselves into this immense republican/democratic system, and you know what? they are truly the same thing: careers in government for those who know what's best for you.

so....you are ultimately right. gore and bush are the only two who have a chance of winning. and what does that say about us?

fakie

 

...and to follow up, ed, i would hardly call a libertarian a "liberal". in the truest sense of the word, liberal represents "more" governemnt, "more" control. the libertarian stance is quite the opposite.

thanks for your comments.

fakie

 

Very good point. While the election was not originally designed to be a two party popularity contest, that's what it seems to have turned into.

What that says about us: We don't really care. The average American doesn't know or care about what goes on in Washington. He'll vote for whoever's there. That will be Bush or Gore.

I think if people paid more attention, and cared more about politics, the two-party system might end. Unless something happens to make the general public care, I can't see anything changing. That is sad. The proof will be in our next peresident.