minutia press.
The issues

  • We're not at war with Viet Nam any more. I can't see how what Kerry or Bush did back then has any bearing on what they will do from here on out, given how little we really know about their character anyway.
  • We are already in Iraq. The issue now isn't that we shouldn't be there, but what should we do now?
  • To say we are going in the right or wrong direction is such an oversimplification of the state of our economy, our foreign policy, and our stance on domenstic social issues such as health care and welfare.

    It's like asking whether lemmings are going in the right direction without knowing where the cliff is.

Why don't the candidates provide ideas about:

  • How do we get out of Iraq? What kind of result can we expect there now? What do we do in general about foreign policy in the Middle East?
  • What should we do as a nation about taxes and federal spending? Bush has spent like money is going out of style but has reduced taxes mostly for the wealthy. Back of the envelop calculations show that this can't go on for long without breaking the bank.
  • What are our Best Ideas about how to reduce the waste and size of government?
  • What should we do about health care? What level of care are we entitled to, and what level of health care is in the public's best interest to prevent the spread of disease and the high cost of treatment?

All that time on TV, and absoluely no clue as to how these and other important issues would be addressed by the potential presidents. Instead, we just got a slew of "Vote for me because I know what I'm doing and the other guy is clueless".

What a disappointing spectacle.


They're pandering to the average voter, who based on their complex polls must have the IQ of zucchini. The fact that George W. Bush will most likely win again is a testament to just how pathetic the Democratic party is right now that for 2 straight election years they haven't been able to find a candidate who is the least bit inspiring.

Posted by: Chris Hill Festival at September 3, 2004 9:35 PM

I think the two-party system encourages the leading candidates to produce simplistic and facile position statements. Why risk offending someone by taking a position at all unless the other candidate is also talking about the issue? Once you've decided to take a position, why bother with nuance when a soundbite will suffice to swing a block of voters? I think we'd see better position statements if there were more choices. http://www.sfelections.org/demo/ was mentioned in a recent post to the Lessig Blog. San Francisco is demoing declared strategy voting, which seems like a good solution to the two-party problem.

Posted by: Sean Foy at September 4, 2004 9:32 PM

You mentioned that the politicking this season can be summed up as "[v]ote for me because I know what I'm doing and the other guy is clueless". If only it were that nice. The newest trend seems to be more along the lines of "vote for me or we'll be attacked by terrorists".

Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more about Vietnam. I don't care about what happened back then and never have. I do, however, care about the economy. Too bad the politicians don't seem to realize that that's what I prefer to hear them talk about.

Posted by: david at September 9, 2004 2:55 PM