Michele Catalano once again takes on a commenter who claims that Bush's victory is a mandate for moral righteousness and that those who produced vulgarity shall feel their wrath. What gets me about that point of view is that the commenter, in using Bush's majority vote, is using Michele's vote in a way that she has been emphatic to disavow. There were a lot of one issue voters out there, yet the commenter failed to realize that there are a lot of "one issues" as well, and that everyone who voted for Bush was not choosing the same one issue.
I was tempted to vote for Bush. I believe that the war is of paramount importance, that Iraq, based on best intelligence of the time, merited "serious consequences", while believing that the Bush Administration has done less than necessary to achieve the best possible result-to-point thus far in that country. Meanwhile, I had zero confidence in Kerry's plan, whatever it was, to do what Bush had not. It was entirely too vague and was undercut by vocal unwillingness from our "allies" in Europe.
Regardless, if I had voted for Bush, it would not have been for any reason involving morals inside of our borders. I have written before about my preference for the government staying out of my moral decision making. The key reason that I did not cast a futile vote for Bush as a protest to Kerry is that I knew my vote in the popular number would be read as positive support for all of Bush's platform, which it most emphatically was not.
I voted for Badnarik. If my vote was going to be counted as an all or nothing Kool-Aid quaff, then I voted for having my vote misrepresented the least.