Sunday, May 06, 2012

'Lesser of two evils' is still evil

He's a smug, Harvard-trained elitist who doesn't get how regular Americans are struggling these days. More extreme than he lets on, he's keeping his true agenda hidden until after Election Day. He's clueless about fixing the economy, over his head on foreign policy. Who is he?

Your answer will help decide the next president.

Is it Barack Obama, as seen by Mitt Romney? Or Romney, the way Obama depicts him? For all their liberal versus conservative differences, when the two presidential contenders describe each other, they sound like they're ragging on the same flawed guy. Or mirror images of that guy.

Will voters prefer the man waving with his left hand or his right?

Blame it on two cautious candidates with more traits in common than their disparate early biographies would suggest.

That article is dead solid perfect.

And Mr. Fish gets it right except for the "voting makes it worse" part. Voting for the lesser of two evils is the real problem, and this is particularly true for those of us living in Texas and other non-swing states, where the presidential contest will never be as close as the polling suggests it to be.

So the key is not to vote for the men. Or any Republicans.

Liberal and progressive women running for office will start fewer wars, torture fewer people, they won't cut education or women's health care, and they're a lot less likely to constantly act like assholes.

I'd of course like to be able to type "none" instead of fewer, but we have to get started somewhere.

Update: And just as a reminder, the lame-ass bunch of moderate Republicans running Americans Elect are not the solution to anything either. Buddy MF'n Roemer, for crissakes.

No comments: