I've been fretting over how to cope with this election's poor selection, and here is a possible solution.

If one votes for Kerry, solely because they want a better speaker, the voter values rhetoric above content.

If one votes for Kerry solely because they like him, the voter values personalities more than the politics those personalities serve.

If one votes for Kerry just to vote against Bush, the voter doesn't actually vote for a candidate and settles for what they're given.

If one votes for Nader, they throw their vote away for some idealistic principle, which means they could throw their vote in the trash, all the same.

However, for those fundamentally opposed to Bush, if they wanted to see more people understand how ill his policies and administration are proving to be, then they should vote for Bush. A vote for Bush will polarize more people away from him than ever before. U.S. forces will be in Iraq for many more years to come with Kerry or Bush in office. A vote for Kerry will shift the blame. Keep it in the House of Bush. Yes, more will suffer. It will get worse. More women and children will die. However, this will happen under Kerry as well. A vote for Kerry will tarnish the Democratic Party farther than it is today. Most Democrats signed any bill and act the administration passed their way. Let them sit in it for another four years. Moreover, strength might grow for other parties, independent of the power block that leaves us with a weak vote this election. Think about the next four years, having voted for Bush to vote against him; rather than spending the next four years defending already ruined policies, that will diminish any credibility the Democratic Party has left if you vote for them.

Max Punkt

I don't know how it's possible to tarnish a tar baby?

That's what the Republican party has become with leaders like George and Laura, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist.

I don't see how they could be tarnished any further. They're pretty much at the 100% mark now where tarnish is concerned.