May 19, 2004

John Kerry better not go there

After the wanton destruction and havoc wreaked by four years of the Bush administration, what we need more than ever is a President with two things: wisdom and guts.

John Kerry has more of both than George W. Bush, but some of his recent statements make me think that he may not have very much more.

Kerry has been playing the role of the pandering politician lately, criticizing Bush for not doing more to reduce gasoline prices. Kerry hasn't gone so far as some Senate democrats in calling for Bush to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but he has tried to turn rising gas prices to his own political benefit in an embarrassingly crass manner.

Folks, gas prices in this country have been way too low for way too long. One of the reasons we're in Iraq is because we're addicted to low oil prices, and we want to control more of the world's supply. One of the reasons we haven't gone after the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia--a regime that's much more responsible for the kind of terrorists that attacked us on September 11 than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was--is that the Saudis have played ball with us on the oil issue.

One of the reasons the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is perennially under threat from the oil lobby is that we want cheap gas so badly we're always vulnerable to any argument for new drilling, no matter how spurious.

Cheap gas begets gluttonous gas usage. Our love affair with big, gas-guzzling SUVs is the manifestation of our gluttony for cheap oil. SUVs aren't a problem, except that they waste a non-renewable resource for doing dumb suburban things like driving to the Macaroni Grill or driving 20 miles one-way into work every day because you just had to buy that big house in Highlands Ranch even though you had no plans to leave your downtown job.

David Brooks to the contrary, this kind of behavior is gluttonous, embarrassing, and signals a cultural decay that's far more profound than Janet Jackson's boob on TV. When politicians like John Kerry continue to pander to our addictions in order to get himself elected, I wonder why we can't just all vote for Ralph Nader.

Posted by Carey at May 19, 2004 09:11 PM

If you live in a state which Kerry has no chance of winning, then you're not hurting anything by voting for Nader. However, if Kerry has any chance of winning (especially in an up-for grabs state like Michigan), then if you care at all about preserving the good that Ralph Nader accomplished, then the only option is to vote for Kerry. Kerry may be less than ideal, but a 2nd Bush term would be an absolute nightmare for America. Until we have an instant runoff system in this country (and I hope we have one soon), "lesser of two evils" is unfortunately the way to vote.

Posted by: Larry at May 24, 2004 11:38 PM