"John Kerry Is a Douchebag…

…but I'm voting for him anyway."

So sayeth Alan Blevins, proprietor of the Web site dedicated to making our moment's own JFK the next president of the United States.

I'm not sure if it's a sign of Kerry's electoral viability or disability that he is inspiring such antics. But the site's name makes me laugh.

[Link via heather's world blog]

Comments

[Shawn Smith]

Maybe someone (Stan Marsh perhaps) can nominate him for the Biggest Douche in the Universe, and dethrone John Edwards. 🙂

[Mo]

He already beat John Edwards in one race. 🙂

Seriously, isn't "John Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him anyway" the rallying cry of most anti-Bush H&R posters that are in swing states? I'm assuming most of the solid red or blue staters are going 3rd party, probably LP.

[joe]

Cofee out the nose funny.

[OL]

Draw-a-crowd-to-my-desk-with-hysterical-laughter funny.

[DoYouKnowWhoIAm?!!!]

It's a good thing Teresa's company makes a lot of vinegar, then.

JFK, MarkII

[Jennifer]

Just once in my life, I'd enjoy the chance to vote FOR a candidate, instead of voting AGAINST his opponent.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

If you don't live in a swing state then you can vote for a third party candidate without worrying about the effect on the outcome. This will spare you the humiliation of having to vote for the slightly-less-awful John Kerry.

[B.P.]

That wasn't lawsuit-hot McDonald's coffee was it, Joe?

[Warren]

thoreau,
I am continuously amazed by the ongoing drone of those who suggest, that who one votes for has anything to do with who gets elected. It hardly matters whether one is in a "swing" state or not. A vote for a major party candidate is a wasted vote. Third party and write in candidate votes are the only ones that matter. As for who gets elected, that has more to do with which side commits more election fraud,and as was so clearly demonstrated in 2000, in the event of a tie the election is decided by the courts. Under no possible circumstances can a election EVER be decided by your vote.

[joe]

I get my coffee from the rent-free stand in City Hall, and they don't serve it very hot.

Why do I suspect this doesn't make you like me any more?

[Xavier]

That site is very light on the "Kerry is a douchebag" and very heavy on the "I'm voting for him anyway." It's kind of disappointing. It's not very well written either. If not for the name, no one would notice it.

[thoreau]

Warren-

You make a good point that the odds are essentially nill of a single vote mattering. But a bloc of votes can matter. So I'm going to repost my idea for what an LP Presidential candidate could do to capitalize on that:

Go to a heavily contested state where the LP's vote total in polls exceeds the margin between Bush and Kerry. Announce that he/she will stop seeking votes in that state and instead encourage his/her supporters to vote for the first major-party candidate who endorses some list of reforms.

It needn't be the entire LP platform (no way they'd endorse that anyway), just some solid measures that would downsize the gov't. It might help to stay away from foreign policy issues that sharply divide LP voters and stick to domestic issues. Some compromise would be needed. e.g. Neither candidate will endorse an end to all taxation, but one of them might endorse a significant tax cut. Neither will endorse full drug legalization, but one of them might endorse medical MJ. And so forth. Maybe even make the list flexible (e.g. here are 6 reforms, and I'll endorse the first candidate who signs off on 5 of them, or something like that).

Whatever. Point is, come up with some reforms that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell and then offer to stop contesting a close state if one of the candidates endorses it.

I know, I know, it's unlikely that any LP candidate would do this. And yes, I know, it's unlikely that Bush or Kerry would ever endorse real reforms. But that's sort of the point: Put them to the test. If they actually do sign off on reform, then an LP candidate will have found a way to use some clout to influence policy. And if they don't, well, that's a very powerful argument the next time somebody says "Don't waste your vote on a third party."

Finally, the last time I posted this idea it was pointed out that in some states a strong showing by a third party presidential candidate makes it much easier for the party to get candidates for other offices on the ballot. So the target state would have to be chosen in close consultation with the state LP affiliate. But the point is that this is a way for the LP to actually play a significant role in Presidential races, and that shouldn't be disregarded.

[kwais]

Thoreau,
I like that idea. I wonder if the LP candidate could convince his supporters to vote for a major party candidate. I have noticed some snobbery amongst LP supporters, they wont even vote for the LP dude, unless the LP candidate is perfect in their eyes.

That would be cool to get one of the major party candidates to endorse some modest, but real reforms.

I can't see that person of a major party being a democrat though.

[thoreau]

kwais-

Whether or not it was a Democrat would depend on the nature of the reforms and how desperate he might be for those LP votes.

If the reforms were medical MJ, repeal of farm subsidies, repeal of the Patriot Act, digital privacy, and various other things that are either civil liberties issues or else economic issues that don't register on the radar of Democratic core constituencies (e.g. farm subsidies), then there's at least a snowball's chance in hell that a Democrat might endorse it. But I suspect that an LP candidate would try to offer a more balanced set of reforms that includes taxes, guns, deregulation, etc., so I agree that it would be unlikely for a Dem to endorse it.

As for actually getting LP voters to do this, I don't claim it would be easy.

Anyway, all of this is unlikely to happen, but it's the only way I can see 0.5% of the electorate wielding any real power.

[Mark Fox]

Is the power of a vote measured by the results of election, or simply by the act of casting? When I write in Daffy Duck, some official acknowledges and records the write-in. That feels pretty cool to me. I can only dream of one day being able to pick a candidate aleady on the ballot who sufficiently represents my views.

Measuring power by winning ignores the power of simply having a voice (even if infinitesimal and marginalized), and can be seen as de-powering all those who voted for the major-party loser. And also, since it is well argued that an abstention is a vote for the winner, the nonvoters actually can be seen to have power since their inaction contributed to the victory.

If results are the primary measure, principles cannot be.

[Ruthless]

Warren, thoreau, and others here miss the point of voting.
Voting is like traffic signals.
The point of both is to make sheep of voters. (Nobody thinks traffic signals expedite the flow of traffic, do they?)
Discussing various voting schemes reminds me of those booklets of lucky numbers you can buy along with your lottery ticket.
Oh yes, the point of lotteries also is to make sheep of voters.
Governments exist to make sheep of voters.

Nobody was smart enough to think these things up for the purposes mentioned, but they have coevolved with society.

Another example: nobody invented the war on drugs to be a war on minorities, but it has turned out that way, and the majority is silently smiling.

[steve]

Mr. Blevins does not write particularly well, except for the titles of some of his opinion pieces. I especially like: "Instances of Doucheitude and Why it Doesn't Matter".

Now, we could argue that it should read "Why they" rather than "Why it", but I am just wicked impressed that he could find a way to use "Doucheitude" in the title and have it seem okay.

Oh, and Warren, look it up, Florida wasn't a tie; Bush won even in the "independent" recounts.

[thoreau]

The most powerful voter, from the standpoint of determining the agenda, is the swing voter.

There are 2 types of swing voters. The most obvious, numerous, and powerful ones are those who are undecided between the 2 front-runners. They are basically a double vote, since if you swing one of them not only do you gain a vote for your column, you also take a vote out of your opponent's column.

The less obvious type of swing voter is the third-party/stay-home swing voter. This voter usually has a definite preference between the front-runners, but he's not sure whether he'll vote for that guy. He may just stay at home because he doesn't see the point, or he may decide to vote third party because his favorite amongst the front-runners isn't good enough.

The Democrats and Republicans understand the importance of this second type of swing voter. Hence they have "get out the vote" efforts, and hence they try to keep their bases happy at least some of the time.

Libertarians could, through careful strategy, attain the power of swing voters if they made more frequent use of the strategy of "endorse some key reforms or we'll go elsewhere." The trick is to make the list of reforms substantial enough to represent progress and actually make the candidate work for their votes, but modest enough to be half-way feasible for a candidate to support without completely alienating lots of other voters.

If we adopt a strategy of never, ever losing our ideological virginity by voting Republican or Democrat in close races then we will be ignored as unreachable. On the other hand, if we adopt a strategy of always blindly supporting the GOP in close races no matter what then we will be taken for granted. The trick for achieving clout is to maintain a credible threat of voting third party while still showing that we are willing, if properly wooed, to vote Republican or Democrat in a close race.

[Gene Berkman]

Mark Fox says "When I write in Daffy Duck, some official acknowledges and records the write-in."

In California, your vote for Daffy Duck would not be counted. Write-in candidates have to file a nominating petition signed by 40 registered voters in their district in order for the vote to be counted.

For many years, Georgia recorded votes for Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse, and included the votes in the official vote totals. About ten years ago, the Georgia legislature changed the law - apparently afraid of the competition.

In any case, it is much better to cast a protest vote for a candidate who is on the ballot, because it is more likely to be counted. I vote for the Libertarian if there is one on the ballot, unless one of the major candidates really does have redeeming qualities.

[Daffy Duck]

Gene,

Sufferin Succotash! I do have a petition signed by 40 people in California! Bill Murray, Michael Jordan, Bugs Bunny, ....

[joe]

thoreau, what if we built a large wooder badger...

"(Nobody thinks traffic signals expedite the flow of traffic, do they?)" Just those of us who know what the hell we're talking about.

Actually, we just make you sit at red lights to make sure everyone in America sits still long enough for the scanners to read the chip in your head. Bwa-ha. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaa!

[thoreau]

joe-

That's no ordinary donkey. Inside the donkey logo at the upcoming Democrat convention there will be a team of libertarian infiltrators. It's been delivered, now we just have to sneak inside it at the appropriate time...

[joe]

Careful, t. According to Tom Delay, JFK is you-know-what-looking.

[Douglas Fletcher]

If he is a douche-bag, does that affect who he chooses for veep?

[dhex]

i'm betting on vagacil.

actually, i've heard from some anyone but bush friends of mine that the site is a hoax of sorts, that the guy doesn't really think kerry's a douchebag or whatever.

eh. i think he got it right the first time.

[thoreau]

Of course he is. Why do you think he has that outrageous accent, silly planner-king? He blows his nose at you and farts in your general direction!

[Jon Zeller]

John Kerry IS a douche bag, and this [funny] site glazes over many important reasons why. An open letter to the author of this website (he responded, but I am awaiting his approval to post it)to that effect is just one of the many wonderful things you will find at http://www.jonzeller.tk . Don't vote for Kerry out of fear, for the love of God. And if you're going to, don't just assume he's any different from Bush on the issues that matter to you. Do research. Have a great day!

[Jon Zeller]

John Kerry IS a douche bag, and this [funny] site glazes over many important reasons why. An open letter to the author of this website (he responded, but I am awaiting his approval to post it)to that effect is just one of the many wonderful things you will find at http://www.jonzeller.tk . Don't vote for Kerry out of fear, for the love of God. And if you're going to, don't just assume he's any different from Bush on the issues that matter to you. Do research. Have a great day!

[Ryan]

There's only 30 something results on google for "john kerry douchebag" ... everyone should link those three words to this site:
http://blog.rpeeck.com/archives/2004/05/22/well-he-is-a-douchebag/

Anyway, that site alone provides enough reason not to vote for him.