As I ponder my options in Tuesday's presidential election, I feel a bit like Stan from South Park. Have you seen the latest episode of the Comedy Central cartoon? It's brilliant. Vulgar, but brilliant.

In this week's episode, animal-rights activists invade South Park Elementary, demanding that the school drop the "Cows" nickname because it's offensive to animals. The school accedes and holds an election to determine a replacement mascot.

Angered by this, Kyle suggests the students write-in "Giant Douche" to protest the change from "Cows." Cartman, trying to one-up Kyle, nominates "Turd Sandwich" instead. A campaign ensues, with anthropomorphic versions of the two candidates appearing at a rally and later debating each other.

Stan reasons that it's not worth voting if it's a choice between a "Giant Douche" and a "Turd Sandwich." Naturally, P. Diddy, who has spearheaded the "Vote or Die" campaign, attempts to kill Stan. Stan gets expelled from school, disowned by his family, and banished by the townspeople--all for questioning whether it's worth casting a ballot when neither candidate deserves his vote. In the end, Stan realizes that elections often feature choices of "bad" and "worse," so he decides to vote.

One day before Election 2004, I'm feeling like Stan Marsh. I know I'm not the only one.

The episode was brilliant. I particularly enjoyed Kyle's determination to convince Stan that voting is important b/c Kyle just knows he will vote for the candidate Kyle wants him to. This is EXACTLY what is behind the Rock the Vote, the Vote or Die or the Cameron Diaz's of the worlds attempts to get young people to vote. Their charade is tired and transparent.

Reminds me again of how shallow the "rock the vote" youth debate was during the primaries. We know exactly how many candidates used to smoke pot. But we know nothing about legislation they'd like to see concerning pot.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Brad, that's exactly what I thought when Bush signed McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug giveaway, and numerous other socialist schemes: with conservatives like these, who needs liberals?

What about when he cut taxes, invaded Afghanistan, signed pro-life legislation, appointed 'strict-constructionist' judges to the bench, and proposed a marriage amendment to the Constitution?

What about plans to reform the tax code and social security? What about plans to transfer government jobs to the private sector? What about appointments to the Supreme Court?

I share some of your frustration over Bush's presidency, but he is drastically superiour to Kerry. To criticize Bush at this point serves no purpose other than to strengthen Kerry. I'd like to say "Either support Kerry or be silent," but that is too harsh for my gentle disposition.

I agree that Bush is drastically superior to Kerry. But it seems that you set the bar quite low when you base your enthusiasm of a candidate on how favorably he compares to John Kerry.

Dan,

In my own defense I would not put it quite like that. I'd say that, given the height of the bar (a fact not of my making; I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primary), I want to clear it.

I would love for the Republicans to provide a candidate worth voting for on the merits, and not just because he's better than the Democrat. I would love to vote for a blend between Reagan and Buckley instead of the less talented of the Bush brothers. Unfortunately, I do not have that chance.

The choice is, whether we like it or not, between Bush and Kerry. And I will support Bush lock, stock and barrel to prevent a Kerry victory.

Brad, I assume we all agree that "Giant Douche" fits Kerry perfectly. My question for you is: what would Bush have to do for you to admit he's a turd sandwich?

Short:

You've missed the point of my posts.

OK, Brad. So your point is that Bush is a turd sandwich but that we have a moral responsibility for voting for him because he is THAT much better than the giant douche?

I picked up your latest book at the bookstore... but, before I bought it I decided to look you up on the web... your comments associating (even remotely) Bush with a "turd sandwich" leaves me more than cold. That bad, huh?

John, a South Park episode satirized elections by depicting two candidates in the unfavorable manner you describe. It's satire, meaning that they take a truth--elections are often choices between bad and worse--and take that truth to a more absurd extreme to illustrate the truth. I found the episode effective satire and hilariously funny. This doesn't mean that I think Bush is a "turd sandwich" or Kerry is a "giant douche" (Neither Kerry nor Bush were assigned one of these specific labels by South Park or myself, so you are wrong to say that I called Bush either name). I don't.

I can't remember an election in my lifetime where I've felt so little enthusiasm for either man: Kerry, because of what the future will bring with him as president; Bush, because the past shows that he has brought more big government at home, Wilsonian nation-building abroad, a surrender on the social issues, and a desire to turn America into an oxymoronic borderless nation.

Short:

I would say that Bush is half "turd sandwich" half roast beef and chedder on white. With that amendment, you have my position perfectly.

Dan... thanks for the clarification. Now, I'll go and buy your book(s).

Well, Brad: chow down.

you guys are disgusting

No name:

Do you know that you have taken on as your own Charles Manson's birth name. I find that seriously disturbed.

You are all missing the point. Voting is easy: just ask yourself, "What would Brian Boitano do?"