I know its a little late seeing as I'm posting this as the polls are closing, but I still think I want my say in things.
<disclaimer> I do not have an official opinion on this because, being 17 years old, I am not legally allowed to make up my own mind about anything, and everything I hear I will, of course, take at face value. </disclaimer>
In response to my disclaimer, Nader would have my vote as he supports lowering the voting age to 16. My birthday is in March, I missed the deadline by 4 months and a week exact. (I want presents from the people that can do math.) Also, there is the fact that I am capable of making a much more informed decision than a vast majority of the "adults" in this country. I think I should run for office and get IQ tests to be a factor in voting age. i.e. Experience or intelligence gets you the right to vote. (Not that it matters anymore.)
Ok, now that I have ranted enough, my vote would be for Nader if he ever had a chance of winning. Visit his site at
http://www.votenader.org (I know this because of a class project), he has some good ideas on healthcare and education reform. I don't agree in particular with his views on foreign policy, but as for a clear, viable exit from Iraq, he doesn't have his head up his ass like Kerry. Don't jump on me for that yet. Kerry fought so hard against Vietnam when he came back, keep that in mind. Also know that (I forget which one it was right now), but one of the presidents elected durring Vietnam said he would start to pull the US out of the war. At the end of his term, troop levels and anti-war sentiment were at an all time high. Link that back to Kerry saying that he thinks Iraq is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and in the same debate saying he would raise worldwide troop levels by 40,000 soldiers, and you have a scary bit of deja-vu. He also threw away the RIBBONS, not his medals from Vietnam, but he still was making a statement. I question whether or not we will see an increase in deserters from the military if the Commander in Chief shows doubts about his own military experience. i.e. Will they assume its okay to launch their own protests by leaving their platoons?
Keep in mind, that is just based on Iraq, I have lots of other reasons for doubting Kerry in domestic, economic, and social issues.
Also, consider this: When Bush came in to office, Clinton left the country with an economy that was starting to turn downhill, there is a generally accepted 100 day grace period where the President gets acquainted with the country, the media, and generally lays out plans for the counrty. The economy was already turning downhill when he was supposed to have this "grace period", instead, with Democrats whining about Florida*** (in one county, not even the whole state) he had turmoil from the start. Then add to that September 11th when people were afraid to leave there houses, leads to a decline in spending, and a weakening economy, and you have who to blame? Oh, thats right, it's all the fault of the president. Somehow that logic does not flow with me...
I've got to go now, I have to wash clothes, there is a storm, my power may go out, and I have to wake up for school at 5:45 AM.
*** The writers of the Constitution, you may have heard of it before, designed the Electoral system specifically so that a nominee could win the popluar vote, but lose the election because they knew, and accounted for, the public being less that fully informed. Recent polls show that only 25% of Americans regularly follow politics. Seeing as the rest of the Constitution has shown remarkable insight to survive for over 200 years with relatively few fundamental changes, I see the Electoral College as just another safeguard built in to a system that protects itself from changes it could itself bring about. i.e. With our government, we won't have radicals come in an election and erase all the Amendments overnight. The ability of free choice also brings about the ability to choose to destroy the choice.
Ok I'm done... for now.
Poll