at my riding lesson yesterday, i was asked who i was voting for. i had been dreading the subject of politics coming up at the barn because i was pretty sure that the affluent white suburban mothers who constitute my lesson group would all support bush. i like them, and want to keep liking them, so i don't want to have it confirmed that their politics are so badly askew. so, faced with a direct question, i chose to carefully show my support for kerry by diplomatically stating the reasons why sane people should vote for him.

the issues that were most important to my fellow riders were: healthcare, iraq, jobs/outsourcing, and stem cells.

HEALTHCARE

bush is claiming that a kerry administration would institute a huge government-run health plan that would result in lower quality of care and less choice. the reality is that kerry's plan calls for reducing annual premiums (which would have the biggest impact on the average voter's wallet) by having the federal government pay for those patients who are the most sick. kerry's plan does this by reimbursing health care companies for 75% of the cost of treating catastrophic illnesses/injuries, as long as those companies pass along the savings to their members in the form of premium reductions.

patients still get to choose their providers. everyone still gets treated (actually, more people get treated, because the government also picks up the tab for those most likely to be without insurance at all, like early retirees who don't yet qualify for medicare and the unemployed). if that is a government-run health program, then sign me up.

IRAQ

iraq is a big fucking mess. regardless of who gets elected, we are still going to be in iraq for the forseeable future. so, voters should not make their choice based on wanting to get out of iraq asap.

here's what i think is the crucial element to the decision of who is better to lead us in iraq: who's got a better chance of not screwing it up, and perhaps even making it better? what we know about how well kerry will do: not a whole lot. but we do have evidence of him conducting himself well in vietnam, and we know that the leaders of other countries will be more willing to help out with kerry in office rather than bush. what we know about bush: despite doing a good job of bringing the country together after september 11th (and i don't want to take away from him the fact that he did do a good job then), he has done a horrible job since then. doing a good job 3 years ago does not STILL give him a pass for screwing up so many times since then. screw-ups include: squandering international good will toward america after september 11th by refusing to take other nations' concerns into account before going to war, failing to have a workable plan for how to run the country after saddam was ousted, wrongly assuming that iraqis would celebrate the american army as liberators, disbanding the iraqi army and creating a large group of unemployed weapons-trained men who had nothing to do but make trouble, de-baathifying the iraqi government thus guaranteeing a shortage of knowledgable people running things, giving no-bid contracts to halliburton which lead to charges of nepotism and massive over-charging by the company, and abu-ghraib. now, after living through all those screw-ups, and the aftermath, why oh WHY would anyone want to give bush another 4 years? if the choice is between an unknown (kerry, sorta) and a known that has messed up, badly, a lot, then how is the choice not for the unknown?

JOBS/OUTSOURCING

i think that the jobs/outsourcing issues is waaaay more complicated than the candidates are making it seem. i think that probably, not all outsourcing is bad. however, what is bad, in my estimation, is giving companies a big ol' tax break in return for outsourcing. that just ain't right. but that's what bush is doing. solution: elect kerry. he may or may not be able to stop/slow outsourcing. but he is likely to be able to stop the tax benefits.

STEM CELLS

bush claims that he has struck a workable compromise in the stem cell debate, by allowing federal research dollars to fund stem cell research on existing stem cell lines, but not to allow federal money to fund the creation of new stem cell lines. he says that making new stem cell lines is not respectful of life because embryos are destroyed in the process. and for a pro-lifer, destroying embryos is abhorent.

i don't agree with that pro-life stance, but i do understand it. if you think that meaningful life begins as conception, then you must think that destroying even very young embryos is murder. my pro-choice stance comes from a belief that at least until an embryo has some semblance of humanity, like a brain and a heart, then destroying it is not disrespectful of human life. but that is neither here nor there.

what bush doesn't tell you is that embryos are destroyed EVERY DAY. infertility treatments often result in a lot of "extra" unused embryos that are stored until the couple decides they don't want them any more. at that point, they are destroyed. what the stem cell scientists want to do is ask couples if, once they've decided they don't want their embryos anymore, they will donate them to science, to be used to create new stem cell lines. remember: these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. would it not be better for the world if they could serve a purpose before they are destroyed? would it not be meaningful and poignant way for those (unborn) lives to make a difference in the world? stem cell research is SO promising--i cannot see the reason in not allowing embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway to be, with the owners permission, put to use in this way.

OTHER ISSUES

the only other big issue was how negative the campaigns are. i agree. it completely sucks that the candidates (both of them) are resorting to lowball attacks on the other guy rather than a thoughtful discussion of the issues. however, i don't think we should be making our decision based on who is less negative, or who's negative ads worked the best (worst?), or the things the candidates wives say or don't say, or who is more of a likeable guy, or who looks more fucking presidential. we should be picking a president based on whose policies and intellect will better serve this country and make life better for us and for the world. and i truly think that for me, for the people in my riding lesson, and for most of america (corporate bigwigs exempted) that person is john kerry. please vote on november 2.

ok, that's the end of the political rant for the day. in other news: go sox!