Election 2004 Rant

Written July 1, 2004

Driving to my newborn son’s first pediatrician appointment this morning I caught a bit of talk show host Rusty Humphries. His topic of the day was whether or not I am charged up for George Bush yet. Being conservative radio, the answers were typically resounding yeses.

I, however, am not. I’m 28 years old and what you would call a disenfranchised voter. I’ve cast a presidential vote only once in my life, for Harry Browne. After some of his September 11th comments, I found myself regretting that one. I think I’ll be voting for Richard Prior.

So much talk is made regarding the red/blue gap in this country. But what about those who don’t fall under either color? What color would the networks give a state that voted Libertarian or Christian Democratic or Green (that one I think I can guess)?

The media, as well as the Blues and Reds, believe there is some deep divide. Those of us without a color realize that the country isn’t as much blue and red as it is purple. George Bush has been spending himself Blue in the face. By not monkeying too much with the economy, former President Clinton seemed more Red than W does sometimes.

There are obvious differences that can be seen on the Red/Blue map. The most obvious is that Gore supporters (inferred to be Blue Democrats) were largely urban dwellers while Bush supporters (inferred to be Red Republicans) were typically rural dwellers. From an ideological standpoint, there are strong differences between the two. From a practical standpoint, Red and Blue office holders are pretty much indistinguishable.

Every time a new president is about to be seated, the Reds and Blues start in with the screaming. The Blues scream that Bush lied about the war. The Reds scream that Kerry’s war service shouldn’t really count because he took advantage of the three and out rule. Funny, just four years ago the Reds were screaming about Clinton’s lies and the Blues were screaming about Bush’s service in the Guard rather than Vietnam.

Blues think it is acceptable to kill a baby in the process of coming out of the womb, but think it cruel to kill a fish for any reason. Reds feel it is OK for you to light up a paper tube filled with tobacco, but fill that paper tube with a plant they don’t like and you should be put in jail and the government should confiscate all of your property.

The only difference I see between Red and Blue is what they choose to be hypocritical about. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is continually abused by Blues; “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” abused by Reds. “The powers not delegated to the United States…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” disparaged by both to increase their power and pursue their agenda of the Congressional session. I could go on, but what would be the point.

If I had talked to Rusty, I would have had to tell him that I probably won’t be voting for a President again this year. The media, the Reds, and the Blues seem to believe that there are only two choices. To vote any other way is to waste your vote.

As a little ‘l’ libertarian, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate that I do not believe will do what is best for this country. I cannot vote for a candidate that believes in one portion of the Constitution but not another. I cannot vote for a candidate that puts career before job responsibilities. I cannot vote for a candidate that supports some of my views but holds beliefs antithetical to some of my others. I will not vote for a candidate so that another won’t win. So again this year, Montgomery Brewster gets written in on my ballot somewhere.

If you feel the way I do, then on Election Day sit down and rent some Richard Pryor movies.