What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[SirNitram]

Of course those are the only qualifications, you asstard. Do you know what 'Qualifications' are?

Sorry, but you claimed earlier that my automechanic isn't qualified. Here's the thing, by those qualifications, HE IS! End of story. Thanks for playing.

Liar. I didn't even respond to your automechanic bullshit. When you can actually hold a coherent debate, child, PM me. This bullshit is getting silly.

[Master of Ossus]

Liar. I didn't even respond to your automechanic bullshit. When you can actually hold a coherent debate, child, PM me. This bullshit is getting silly.

Ah, you're right. Sorry. That was Durandel.

[SirNitram]

Liar. I didn't even respond to your automechanic bullshit. When you can actually hold a coherent debate, child, PM me. This bullshit is getting silly.

Ah, you're right. Sorry. That was Durandel.

And even his statement isn't wrong: He said the Automechanic isn't qualified to be a CEO. This is literally true, as I've seen the qualifications that exist to apply to be a CEO. However, running for president has looser guidelines, as outlined by the Constitution. It seems you can't even get this shit right when you mix up the people you're debating.

Are you going to apologize for the strawman bullshit where you insist I claimed anyone who fufils the base requirements for President is better than Bush, now?

[Master of Ossus]

Alright, alright, sorry everyone.

[Durandal]

Of course those are the only qualifications, you asstard. Do you know what 'Qualifications' are?

Sorry, but you claimed earlier that my automechanic isn't qualified. Here's the thing, by those qualifications, HE IS! End of story. Thanks for playing.

And this affects John Kerry's qualifications ... how? Are you really that loathe to admit that the country would be better off with Kerry as president rather than Bush?

[Master of Ossus]

Of course those are the only qualifications, you asstard. Do you know what 'Qualifications' are?

Sorry, but you claimed earlier that my automechanic isn't qualified. Here's the thing, by those qualifications, HE IS! End of story. Thanks for playing.

And this affects John Kerry's qualifications ... how? Are you really that loathe to admit that the country would be better off with Kerry as president rather than Bush?

No. In fact, I don't think I've EVER argued that it wouldn't be.

[Graeme Dice]

In other words, you actually ARE someone who feels that anyone over the required age who was born in the United States is more worthy of a vote than GW. I believe I can rest my case, now.

Since they haven't yet screwed up as badly as Bush has, then yes, they are almost certainly more worthy of a vote.

[Agrajag]

It's not enough to simply be different than the other person. You have to show evidence that you're BETTER. If there were no more qualified applicants for the position, and the options you were presented with as a factory owner were actually worse than the guy you have, then it would be foolish to hire the other person in spite of the current manager's incompetence.

And to suggest, based on the existing historical record, that John Kerry is not qualified or, as suggested here, worse, is more foolish than anything. This glorifying of Bush is getting WAY out of hand. There is NO concensus that the economy is improving. There is no proof that the tax cuts really helped anyone but the rich. There is growing concensus that the war in Iraq wasn't worth it. In other words, this man is quickly finding himself to be among the very bottom of those who have held the office.

[tharkûn]

And how does this invalidate the analogy? Are you suggesting that Bush is average, hence there's no good reason to believe Kerry or any other reasonably qualified applicant won't be better? That's bullshit and you know it. When you have someone who is the worst performer in recent memory, you can hardly use this logic.

I am NOT saying Kerry won't be better, I'm saying that the fundemental process by which candidates are selected is a longer term bigger issue problem which ABB makes worse.

The problem is not just Bush, the problem is that the system has churned up a choice of Bush vs Kerry when both are morons and we are reduced to debating just who is going to dick the world over less. Voting ABB is telling the democrats that it is okay to offer a craptacular candidate so long as he is only slightly less odious than his opponent. This is a BAD thing. There are only two things political parties want: money and votes; denying them one or both is the only leverage Joe citizen has to change the bloody process.

And how does this invalidate the analogy? Unless you can prove that Kerry is massively, horribly incompetent, the logic still applies: better to go with an apparently run-of-the-mill candidate than one with a proven record of incompetence and dishonesty.

Better to go with neither and get enough dissedent vote, as Perot did in '92, to get the parties to stop taking your vote for granted and run some pandering moron.

This is why I think hiring the manager is flawed; you have thousands of possible applicants and who/why you hire one guy and fire another has no bearing on the types of applicants that come when you have to fire the next moron. For the presidency voting ABB means that the democrats get your vote for no effort and hence they have no incentive to actually offer a superior candidate in '08 or '12.

Bullshit; one of them has a proven record of gross incompetence and dishonesty; the other is a run-of-the-mill politician. Any normal company would hire a run-of-the-mill manager to replace one who was sinking the company and lying to the board.

This ain't a company, if you hire one moron to get rid of another then you will only get more morons in the future. Fire the one, decline the other, and wait for a better choice.

The same goes for vendors, if you prefer that analogy. Given two vendors, both of whom promise to give you improved product quality and better delivery times, you don't distinguish based on their claims: you distinguish based on the fact that one of them now has a proven record of gross incompetence and lying to you.

This is not a binary choice: boycott both. If both vendors are hawking substandard products then don't encourage either of them. If enough people get fed up with lousy quality and stop buying from either vendor then somebody in management will sit up, take notice, and make changes.

The reason ABB sucks is not the next 4 years. It is that it reinforces the tendancy to pick morons to run in the first place.

[Elfdart]

Here in the real world, we have to choose between those who are actually running, or not vote at all, or write someone in. Well, writing in a candidate (with a few exceptions) is a joke. I'm not walking to the local voting place to masturbate or pull a prank. Writing in "Daffy Duck" or "Me!" was mildly amusing in the 4th grade. For eligible voters, it sucks.

Not voting? In A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More points out that silence gives consent. If you abstain from voting, you have consented to whoever the victor is and whatever the victor wants. Kind of like the part of the wedding when the warlock says: "If anyone here objects to this union, speak now or forever have a nice hot cup of 'shut the fuck up'. ". If you are eligible to vote and don't, you have no business bitching.

So the only option (in my opinion) is to choose from actual candidates who are running. In the primaries, I chose Kerry -with Edwards a close second. Libertarians, Greens, Natural Law and other fringe parties are only slightly better than write-ins. This is not a parliamentary system, it's winner-take-all, so for the most part we're stuck with the two main parties. The Republicans offer Bush; the Democrats Kerry.

ABB? How about A*BB? With this disclaimer: * Anybody who is a candidate with a realistic chance of actually winning the election.

This election isn't a choice between "evils" as far as I'm concerned. I think Kerry would make a much better president.

Wong's argument is pretty much on target, but was summed up better by Mae West:

If I have to choose between evils, I'll take the one I haven't tried before.

[MKSheppard]

Vet must be pissed at him, after the 2000 smear campaign.

from my ye olde quote file from a long ago message board:

One thing about McCain. He fights to win and breaks out all the heavy equipment. Remember the primary against W.

That was a scorched earth campaign complete with Catholic voter alert phone calls and the demonization of Jerry Falwell.

[tharkûn]

Here in the real world, we have to choose between those who are actually running, or not vote at all, or write someone in. Well, writing in a candidate (with a few exceptions) is a joke. I'm not walking to the local voting place to masturbate or pull a prank. Writing in "Daffy Duck" or "Me!" was mildly amusing in the 4th grade. For eligible voters, it sucks.

Hence the term protest vote; yes a large enough protest vote might turn the election. But in all honesty Kerry is Bush-lite; it would be far better to beat it into the major parties heads that the electorate is sick and bloody tired of these moronic choices and they need to reform. Absolutely nothing is superior at reforming American politics than watching your party get burned because they were ignoring wide swathes of voters.

Writing in None of the above is a legitimate choice; any type of protest vote that gets the parties to pull their collective heads out of their asses works for me.

So the only option (in my opinion) is to choose from actual candidates who are running. In the primaries, I chose Kerry -with Edwards a close second. Libertarians, Greens, Natural Law and other fringe parties are only slightly better than write-ins. This is not a parliamentary system, it's winner-take-all, so for the most part we're stuck with the two main parties. The Republicans offer Bush; the Democrats Kerry.

Exactly and if you get burned badly by the protest vote then things WILL change, much as happened following Perot.

ABB? How about A*BB? With this disclaimer: * Anybody who is a candidate with a realistic chance of actually winning the election.

How about any candidate that actually represents the issues I give a damn about? How about a candidate shows some effort to get my vote rather than just asuming he's entitled to it by virtue of being slightly less moronic than the other guy.

This election isn't a choice between "evils" as far as I'm concerned. I think Kerry would make a much better president.

Wonderful, I think Kerry is not all that much different than Bush and is sounding more protectionist to boot. About the only saving grace for Kerry is gridlock, but again the libertarian/moderate wing of the republican party has started to show some backbone and most of the truly hideous measures are going to need 60% in the senate anyways.

Vote ABB, show the parties that as long their candidate is slightly less moronic than the other guy you vote is free and can be ignored.

[Agrajag]

But in all honesty Kerry is Bush-lite; it would be far better to beat it into the major parties heads that the electorate is sick and bloody tired of these moronic choices and they need to reform.

While I would never agree that Kerry is "Bush-lite", the situation has been rigged against us at every turn. In 1992 19% of the voters went with Perot and that shocked a lot of people, so much so that I believe Clinton made some moves he would not have others made had it not been for that large showing of dissent. However, also note that Perot's popularity came right out of the debates so what was the response to that? The 2 parties took over the debates and now won't allow for a third party to get involved. Worse, these aren't even debates. They're just glorified controlled speeches. Everything is about control now.

Writing in None of the above is a legitimate choice; any type of protest vote that gets the parties to pull their collective heads out of their asses works for me.

If Bush is re-elected, none of that is going to happen. Kerry winning proves to the Karl Rove's of the world, that you actually do need to have a solid candidate to win long-term. You can't put a lackluster politician in office, have him screw up repeatedly and expect to get him re-elected on a series of misdirections. Bush simply cannot be rewarded, under ANY circumstance, for the situation he's put us all into these last 4 years. All that would do is reinforce the, hopefully mistaken, belief that most people aren't very bright and that you can essentially steal the most important job in the world. Frankly, we already allowed that to happen once as far as I'm concerned and to have it happen twice just isn't acceptable.

Exactly and if you get burned badly by the protest vote then things WILL change, much as happened following Perot.

So far what's happened is that the Dems have gotten hurt by the so-called "protest vote" and that has energized the Republicans to work on behalf of the Indepedents. That's no protest.

Voting for Kerry sends a CLEAR message that the public will not accept incompetence in office. That message gets sent to all parties, not just Republicans. Kerry, if elected, will be out on his ass too if he screws up. That's just fine with me.

The part that really bothers me from here on out is that terrorist attacks are now inevitable and every time they happen the other side is going to blame the party in office for it and, with the atmosphere the way it is now, that could be enough to send you home. The odd part is, somehow this hasn't hurt Bush and it should have. Clearly after 1993 and the Cole and the other incidents, terrorism was a known problem. I suspect once this election is over and the 9/11 commission gets to speak about THIS administration, we're going to find that they have COMPLETELY mishandled the entire situation from start-to-finish.

Again, we're in such a complete chaotic mess that a concept like ABB was born. That says less about Kerry than it does about Bush and that is the bottom line.

[tharkûn]

1992 19% of the voters went with Perot and that shocked a lot of people, so much so that I believe Clinton made some moves he would not have others made had it not been for that large showing of dissent.

Exactly, if enough people protest vote people sit up and take notice; voting ABB effectively says "my vote is a freebie, don't bother to stop acting like a moron"

However, also note that Perot's popularity came right out of the debates so what was the response to that? The 2 parties took over the debates and now won't allow for a third party to get involved.

More because third parties can't meet the requirements because people like yourself would rather perpetuate the current farce out of partisanship and fear of herr Bush than try to change the process itself.

If Bush is re-elected, none of that is going to happen.

BS. If 10% of the electorate votes protest then one party or both will adapt; exactly as Clinton did and to a lesser extent the Republicans. If you get burnt because you repeatedly put morons up on for office then you will change. Hell it would have happened this time except so many people would rather piss over Florida rather than admit that even a statistical deadheight was only possible because the choice offered was CRAP.

You can't put a lackluster politician in office, have him screw up repeatedly and expect to get him re-elected on a series of misdirections.

Sure you can, when the best argument for the other side is he isn't the other guy. If you beleive Kerry is genuinely better than Bush by a significant margin then you should vote Kerry; if you are voting ABB then you really should be working against a system that offers such a craptacular choice.

Bush simply cannot be rewarded, under ANY circumstance, for the situation he's put us all into these last 4 years. All that would do is reinforce the, hopefully mistaken, belief that most people aren't very bright and that you can essentially steal the most important job in the world. Frankly, we already allowed that to happen once as far as I'm concerned and to have it happen twice just isn't acceptable.

What is Bush going to different than Kerry? Not hellishly much, his more idiotic plans are doomed to failure and if we have another 4 years then he sets up backlash and with the dems running a better candidate than Kerry we might end up with a real election.

far what's happened is that the Dems have gotten hurt

Thank you captain obvious, that is the point. Hurt them so they will get off their collective asses and get a better choice through. I'll take 4 more years of Bush if helps stop 12 more years of moron 1 vs moron 2.

Voting for Kerry sends a CLEAR message that the public will not accept incompetence in office. That message gets sent to all parties, not just Republicans. Kerry, if elected, will be out on his ass too if he screws up. That's just fine with me.

Yes and then the republicans will run another moron and we will be hearing the right chant ABK; who will then be ousted by yet another moron ... it is far more pressing to stop BS choices like Bush vs Kerry than keeping Bush out of the whitehouse.

Again, we're in such a complete chaotic mess that a concept like ABB was born. That says less about Kerry than it does about Bush and that is the bottom line.

No it says much more about Kerry. Let's be honest, a decent democratic candidate would be curbstomping Bush. The entire ABB concept is completely unneeded; except when your candidate is so pathetic that only in comparison to a moron does he look good.

[Darth Wong]

No it says much more about Kerry. Let's be honest, a decent democratic candidate would be curbstomping Bush.

Kerry's weak campaign skills are not the point of this thread; the point of this thread is that any real business would gladly replace someone who's been running the business into the ground and lying to the board with a run-of-the-mill qualified candidate. You have utterly failed to disprove that proposition.

[Agrajag]

Exactly, if enough people protest vote people sit up and take notice; voting ABB effectively says "my vote is a freebie, don't bother to stop acting like a moron"

No, not exactly. I didn't vote for Perot as a protest vote. I wanted him to WIN. I wanted the standard guys OUT. What RESULTED was a protest vote because he lost. If I vote for Kerry and he loses, then my vote becomes a protest vote. I'm voting for Kerry both because I want him to win over Bush. However, I also believe full in ABB with the caveat that ABB isn't literal. It, to me, means anyone realistically qualified to run against Bush. I'd vote for Nader if I thought he could win. He can't so I'm not bothering. I don't think there is ANY scenario in which Bush could win and look at the votes and say, "Gee, I better clean up my act and change because there were a lot of protest votes out there." Frankly, that's what happened in 2000. The guy got in on a technicality and then acted like he had a mandate from the masses to govern the way he did.

More because third parties can't meet the requirements because people like yourself would rather perpetuate the current farce out of partisanship and fear of herr Bush than try to change the process itself.

It has nothing to do with that. After Perot, the parties took over the debates. Prior to that 1996, all debates were run by the League of Women Voters who decided if a third party candidate was strong enought to include (like Perot and, earlier, John Anderson were). The LWV has now completely, and very publicly disassociated themselves to the current setup and called it a fraud on the American public.

BS. If 10% of the electorate votes protest then one party or both will adapt; exactly as Clinton did and to a lesser extent the Republicans.

Again, we have history to look at here. Bush didn't with the popular vote, had to squeeze into office and then acted like we all voted for him. He's never had a mandate and has had lots of protests but it has not made any impact on him. Futhermore, there's a MAJOR difference between the Clinton situation and the Bush situation. Clinton had to worry about being relected in the election right behind this rather stunning turn of events. It was clear to him that 20% of the country was PISSED OFF and wanted some of what Perot stood for. Thus, he catered to that and pulled in much of the Perot crowd in 1996. Bush, after this, has nothing to lose. He didn't cater to us in 2000 so there's NO reason to think he'd do ANYTHING differently with nothing left to gain.

If you beleive Kerry is genuinely better than Bush by a significant margin then you should vote Kerry; if you are voting ABB then you really should be working against a system that offers such a craptacular choice.

Nothing says those two are mutually exclusive. I believe Kerry is better than Bush but the Dems could put up just about anyone and I'd vote for him over Bush at this point. Understand that the dems wouldn't put up Charles Manson so again, ABB isn't literal. Frankly, if they put Al Sharpton up there, I'd think twice about it but still vote against Bush in that case. If anything it would send a message to the REST of the world that we're really not behind what this administration did. "OH MY GOD! Vladimir! They elected that nut, Al Sharpton!"

What is Bush going to different than Kerry?

Where do I start??? For starters there's the whole stem cell situation. Then there's the whole constitutional amendment fiasco, then the assault weapons ban, then the tax cut for the rich, then the deficit spending (some conservative there!), then the gutting of Social Security, then the mess of Medicare, then the cutting of vets benefits, the ridiculous and totally failed no child left behind joke and none of this even mentions the Iraq situation. Bush has essentially insulted most of the nations in the world. He has NO chance of getting their support for anything let alone support in Iraq. Kerry has a much better chance of coming in and getting help from around the world. It isn't being said because it's not PC, but the major way to do that is to INCLUDE the other nations in rebuilding Iraq. That has been LIGHTLY said, but what they mean by that is kicking Halliburton out of there and giving that work to other nations companies so that they benefit from the recovery. Money talks and giving them that access WILL make a MAJOR difference. Won't happen with this group because Cheney has too many friends that aren't high enough up on the Forbes list yet.

I'm all for the Dems putting up a better candidate but that will have to wait, hopefully until 2012.

I'll take 4 more years of Bush if helps stop 12 more years of moron 1 vs moron 2.

Well, we disagree there, clearly. I refuse to reward moron 1 because the Dems didn't put up the perfect candidate. Who is this mythical perfect candidate? I'd vote for Wesley Clark, but he's not perfect. Hell, I'd vote for Oprah, which is Michael Moore's old joke, but she's not running. The "perfect" candidate for the dems is the one who gets to the top. We had Dean and apparently didn't want him. I was fine with him.

Yes and then the republicans will run another moron and we will be hearing the right chant ABK; who will then be ousted by yet another moron ...

You can't know who they're putting up then. And Anybody But thinking will crop up in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION no matter who is running. SOME people will always feel the current guy is a complete blithering idiot. Thus, there's really nothing inherently wrong with the concept. When the MAJORITY feel "Anybody But..." syndrome then we have a real problem.

The entire ABB concept is completely unneeded; except when your candidate is so pathetic that only in comparison to a moron does he look good.

We disagree. ABB has come about because Bush is THAT bad to a those of us with the ABB thinking. It doesn't matter to me if the Dems ran... ME! I'd still be saying, "Hey, anybody but Bush. You wanna run? I'll support you too!" Mark my words, even if God won, 4 years from now there'd be a thread here on ABG.

[Darth Wong]

I do particularly like the way none of the pro-Bush types want to address the most crucial point of the analogy, which is that pretty much any candidate for a managerial job in a money-losing company will promise to do pretty much the same things, so you're not going to get much difference in "platforms" when it comes to solving the major problems created by the predecessor, yet no business owner in his right mind would pick the guy who got them into the mess in the first place.

Also notice how Tharkun basically ignored that part of the argument in his reply, and tried to change the subject to "let's talk about how imperfect the two-party system is".

[Galvatron]

At this point, I'd probably choose Dan Quayle over Bush!

[tharkûn]

Mike: You asked, "What's wrong with 'Anybody but Bush'?"
I replied, "It gives your vote away and encourages both parties to run morons."

When hiring a manager if you replace moron A with moron B, nothing changes, you fire moron B and hire a completely different individual. In politics it isn't so nice. You fire moron A and hire moron B, well then A's team will repeat the performance with a new moron when it comes time to fire B.

If you one party is garunteed to get your vote without working on your issues, then it is a pretty good bet they aren't going to work on your issues.

Tell me this if the Liberals merged with the NDP, proved themselves to be incompotent, and their current PM was a moron would you then back the conservatives under another moron like Stockwell Day because he's anybody but the liberals?

[Darth Wong]

Mike: You asked, "What's wrong with 'Anybody but Bush'?"
I replied, "It gives your vote away and encourages both parties to run morons."

Since it was posed as a rebuttal to the people who say that we should vote for George W. Bush based on their ridicule of the ABB idea, this retort is completely irrelevant. And the fact is that there are only two choices here, like it or not.

When hiring a manager if you replace moron A with moron B, nothing changes, you fire moron B and hire a completely different individual. In politics it isn't so nice. You fire moron A and hire moron B, well then A's team will repeat the performance with a new moron when it comes time to fire B.

See above.

If you one party is garunteed to get your vote without working on your issues, then it is a pretty good bet they aren't going to work on your issues.

See above.

Tell me this if the Liberals merged with the NDP, proved themselves to be incompotent, and their current PM was a moron would you then back the conservatives under another moron like Stockwell Day because he's anybody but the liberals?

That depends on just how bad the Liberal/NDP alliance is, doesn't it? And you're still trying to change the subject. The fact remains that given only two realistic choices, you choose the one who is not already known to be a lying idiot.

[tharkûn]

Since it was posed as a rebuttal to the people who say that we should vote for George W. Bush based on their ridicule of the ABB idea, this retort is completely irrelevant. And the fact is that there are only two choices here, like it or not.

Sorry, I've never heard someone say that ABB means you should vote for Bush otherwise. ABB is not a reason to vote Kerry, it is a reason to not vote Bush - either vote Kerry if there is a reason to or vote none of the above.

Most of the complainst about ABB being stupid are because you should either have a reason to vote Kerry or vote neither.

That depends on just how bad the Liberal/NDP alliance is, doesn't it? And you're still trying to change the subject. The fact remains that given only two realistic choices, you choose the one who is not already known to be a lying idiot.

As bad as Bush. Suppose the Liberal/NDP alliance is known to be riddled with lying idiots from the PM on down ... do you then vote for the conservatives lead by somebody like Stockwell Day?

[Darth Wong]

As bad as Bush. Suppose the Liberal/NDP alliance is known to be riddled with lying idiots from the PM on down ... do you then vote for the conservatives lead by somebody like Stockwell Day?

If their leadership is sufficiently catastrophic, then yes. They would have to be pretty bad, and comparing Stockwell Day to Kerry is rather ironic since he was a huge Bush fan and very similar to Bush in most respects, but the logic remains the same: given two qualified choices, you generally don't choose the one who has already demonstrated horrific incompetence and dishonesty in the job. You would need to have some pretty damning information on the other one to stick with the first one (thus making him no longer an unknown quantity).

[Agrajag]

ABB is not a reason to vote Kerry, it is a reason to not vote Bush - either vote Kerry if there is a reason to or vote none of the above.

Is John Kerry the same person as George Bush? If your answer to this question is "No", then John Kerry qualifies as Anyone But Bush.

A reason to vote for Kerry is that you cannot stand Bush. How some can't fathom that is surprising. Sorry, but those of us who have had enough of Bush have not lost our marbles to the point of believing that a vote for None of the Above (which, by the way, does not qualify as Anybody but Bush) would help our concern.

I don't like bananas, but I like eating. I didn't eat a banana, think "blech, that's total rubbish" and then decide not to eat any longer. I just decided it was okay to eat an orange instead. If I don't like that I'll try an apple next time.

I like having competent leadership. When I find the taste of the current one to be not to my liking, I don't swear off voting. I vote for another potential leader. People who decide they don't like various things don't keep them around their house so that they can tell everyone they don't like all those things in the corner. They toss them out with the garbage.

[Coyote]

[*]Fire the incompetent shitstain and hire someone who's got decent qualifications in the hopes that he'll do a better job?[/list]

Virtually anyone in his right mind would choose option #3: fire the incompetent shitstain and go get somebody else, even if he doesn't come with a guarantee of solving all of his predecessor's problems.

That is the crux of it in this case. It assumes that the guy being sent in to replace one bumbling nitwit is smarter or better qualified. But what if the only other person who shows up for the job interview is just as much of a bumbling nitwit, only in a different way? Or has some other flaw that precludes his taking over with a clean conscience?

From my point of view, replacing one dimwit with another isn't going to solve the problem. I don't like Bush but Kerry has not convinced me he would do better.

Now, Kerry still has time to prove to me that he has a lot more up his sleeve than what he's shown so far, so I'm willing to listen to him some more, but I am skeptical. Bring in a guy who is smart and has a smart plan as well (I don't doubt that Kerry is smart, and he is certainly more articulate than Bush-- but so far, his plans haven't been too inspiring).

[tharkûn]

Mike:

given two qualified choices, you generally don't choose the one who has already demonstrated horrific incompetence and dishonesty in the job

And here is one place I think the analogy fails, I view it as given that there are two unqualified choices. And hence support neither.

Agrajag:

A reason to vote for Kerry is that you cannot stand Bush. How some can't fathom that is surprising. Sorry, but those of us who have had enough of Bush have not lost our marbles to the point of believing that a vote for None of the Above (which, by the way, does not qualify as Anybody but Bush) would help our concern.

Historically voting spoiler is the most effective way to reign in the parties. It happened with Perot, with Teddy Roosevelt, with John Fremont, and to lesser extents with Weaver, Fisk, and the like.

You view putting Bush-lite into office as more important than kicking some sense into the major parties, I do not.