Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Is this the best we can muster?
Published on October 13, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

I wish I were more excited about this election.  It's a sad commentary of our political process and its overall nastiness that the best we can do it a John Kerry or George W. Bush.  Two guys who wouldn't have made it through a first round of interviews at most companies. And so that's what we end up with - guys who can't get real jobs end up becoming politicians.

Ever heard the saying "Those who can't, teach"?  They should add a corollary to that: Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach run for office. No one bothers to deconstruct these guys. They hide behind "Years of dedicated public service" and other such glossing over the fact that all 4 of these men are nothing special.

Let's take a hard look at them.

First we have our President, George W. Bush.  He's a guy who really never had a real job. He was a trust fund baby. Ever look at his job record? Not much there. He simply used his dad's various connections to work his way up.  His only redeeming quality is that he's good at spotting smart people to work with.

Next we have Dick Cheney.  Cheney is significantly better in my opinion. He obviously knows his stuff and probably could have done well in the private sector (and was, after all, the CEO of Halliburton). Of course, Halliburton is the boogeyman now that he's vice president.  But that's mostly the result of dumb people believing manufactured crap from politicians. But he only got that position at Halliburton because he had previously been secretary of defense. Bright guy that could have probably done well in the real world but he'll never be President.

Then there's John Kerry. Here's a guy who converted 4 months of experience in Vietnam into a political career. He immediately went for public office. When he lost (at first)  he was briefly a pretty decent district attorney.  But like Bush, he didn't accomplish much outside of politics. And in politics he was a pretty mediocre senator.  Another rich guy (though good at becoming richer by marrying well) who just coasted through life.  He is, at least, able to speak coherently and intelligently, something that Bush doesn't seem to be very good at. But like Bush, just a spoiled frat boy who's coasted through life.

And finally there's John Edwards, my least favorite of them all. Edwards is the ultimate hypocrite. A social parasite. An ambulance chaser who somehow managed to make it look like he was fighting for the "little guy" even as he pocketed tens of millions of dollars in settlements. A guy whose only real expertise is having figured out how to work the insurance industry system of knowing how much he could get out of an insurance company without having to go to court.  He has never made anything. Built anything. And worse, he's a hypocrite. While decrying how the government needs to raise income taxes to help provide more to the "other America", he himself bilked the system (legally) in ways other businessmen (such as myself) refuse to do.  How? He made his law practice an s-corporation and then pays himself through dividends. So income tax increases don't affect him at all. Nice. I could do the same thing. Our accountants put it like this back in 2000 (I'm quite familiar with how Edwards did his taxes as you can tell): "If you want to avoid paying taxes, your best bet is to pay yourself in the form of dividends rather than a salary." It's perfectly legal but kind of icky ethically. It's a loophole and while I deplore high taxes, I don't believe it's acceptable to exploit the system.  So I get paid a salary and pay my income taxes and Medicaid and Medicare taxes as well -- even as slime balls like Edwards complain I'm not paying enough even as he avoids paying hardly any taxes at all.

And I could include Nader who is, sadly, a total nut. Besides not even owning a car (I'm not even sure he has a driver's license) he's weird in all sorts of other ways. A 70some year old life-long bachelor. Want to talk about out of touch with the rest of America.

So these are our choices. Oh joy..


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 13, 2004
Draginol:

The process is always flawed. Every election I've voted in except Reagan in '80 and '84 when the Dems essentially didn't field a viable candidate was hard to pick.

I'm not sure I would even consider the VP Candidates as neither Bush or Kerry is likely to die (of natural causes) during their term.

You either have to have a rating system of some type (at least the issues in the election are fairly well spelled out) or go by some kind of gut instinct. Many I know on both sides of the political spectrum have told me they vote with their party unless they are convinced their party's candidate is really flawed.

I agree this election has caused many people sleepless nights.
on Oct 13, 2004
Bush or Kerry is likely to die (of natural causes)

do we dare pray otherwise?
on Oct 13, 2004
Now my question for you Brad is this: before you started working on the Political Machine, would or could you have written this same article?
on Oct 13, 2004
Insightful Brad!
on Oct 13, 2004
My brother years ago suggested that we pick our president through a national lottery, and while I was skeptical at the time, I've warmed up to it a bit. I think it's entirely possible that random picks might have made better presidents than the men we chose. The lottery system would favor representativeness, while eliminating the need to pander.
on Oct 13, 2004
I have 21 words for you on the lottery system:

Do you want anyone whose been on Jerry Springer to represent you? Or the person you fear and despise the most?
on Oct 13, 2004
Do you want anyone whose been on Jerry Springer to represent you? Or the person you fear and despise the most?


No and Darth Vader would be a good president!!



on Oct 13, 2004
Also:
Blame Canada!
Choose Death!
Vote Badnarik!

MUHAHAHAHAHA, good article Brad.

Though if you are voting the 'lesser of two weasels' is one not still voting for weasel?

- Grim X
on Oct 13, 2004
Nice article, Brad. Now I'm more depressed than ever.
It seems that the kind of person most of us would like to have as a leader has too much sense to get into the quagmire of political office!
on Oct 13, 2004
Two guys who wouldn't have made it through a first round of interviews at most companies.


As a self-made millionaire and business man, this carries a lot of weight with me, coming from you.

Cheney is significantly better in my opinion


I agree with this. If Dick Cheney could match Bush's "charisma" factor ( a factor much too important IMHO) then he would be another Reagan (or at least close).

Bright guy that could have probably done well in the real world but he'll never be President.


He's damned hard to win with in your video game, anyhoo.

He is, at least, able to speak coherently and intelligently, something that Bush doesn't seem to be very good at. But like Bush, just a spoiled frat boy who's coasted through life.


Probably the truest thing I've read among all the reams (and computer screen pages) I've read for about 2 years.

And finally there's John Edwards, my least favorite of them all.


Jesus, I'm a liberal, and Edwards is BY FAR my least favorite, too.

It's perfectly legal but kind of icky ethically.


Good for you for not doing this, Brad -- you seem like a very upstanding type of guy, so I believe you 100% here.

So these are our choices. Oh joy..


You know, Brad, despite us snarking back and forth at one another (both me and you personally and the lefties and righties figuratively), this is why things like Joe User are so important. This is why I'll be more than happy to pay my monthly fee for JU. Because all of us on here give a damn for the Republic, and despite our disagreements, we seem to have one thing in common: we're not happy with the way things are being run, and we want a voice to say so. That voice can praise the good -- but it can skewer the bad, too. I hope you feature this article #1 on the JU homepage, because I think it is brilliant.

Cheers, mate.
on Oct 13, 2004
hey it's not that horrible. You should read the econimists "No way to run a democracy"

It deals with everything you said plus more. Infact the Econamist in general is great for stuff like this and other things, it's the only magizine Bill Gates reads cover to cover, though wether that is good or bad I still haven't figured out.

Anyway if you care to look up the article it's 'September 18th, 2004 Head Story' I've lost the cover I' wear mine out so fast....

For copyright reasons I can't type up the article., also for consideration for my hands. But the jist of it was the faults of the American democracy as it is right now., but also it took into consideration that there is no perfect voting system, and the faults are really just abuses

As always please visit my website Abeeda.com and join up, it's free. [ especially if you want to talk further with me]

on Oct 13, 2004
y'know, I tend to use a type of perspective when I get down and out about it...Idi Amin, or George Bush? Dubya looks like solid gold. Hitler or Reagan? Again, Reagan is the Midas man...I could go on (Nixon, or Pol Pot?) but the point is, the Republic is bigger than whoever happens to lead it at the moment. Of course, we need to make our voices heard (and thankfully we have that right), but things could be so very much worse.
on Oct 13, 2004
Myrrander, my second article on JU was a piece called "Anyone but Bush?" which essentially dealt with the same kind of thinking....
on Oct 13, 2004
thanks, I'll look at that -- hell, my wife and I are a couple of Nader 2000 voters...blah...that's all I can say, is "blah"
on Oct 13, 2004
Not voting for Cobb, Myrrh?
3 Pages1 2 3