MYRICK'S ENDORSEMENT

I don't blog much about the election. It's not because I don't think it's important. But I'm a Canadian and I'm in Singapore. I'm 12 hours removed from Eastern Standard Time so, naturally, my opinion on this should be immediately disregarded.

Still, if I have to post on this I should do it before the votes are counted.

First – to ingratiate myself with any right-wing bloggers who I may offend – I'll take a shot at the liberal media.

I work for a media company. Its headquarters is in the UK. It has a few news publications, a lot of trade publications and a few market information services.

This poll has been running on the internal website for a while now:

Which candidate would you vote for in the US elections?
George W Bush (10.3%)
John Kerry (89.7%)
Total Votes: 1285

While it is a UK company, I worked at a few other places and can safely say that it's probably reflective of most media organizations. Yes, the media are liberal shills. Most of us are anyway. I was one of the 10.3%.

For regular readers, that should be no surprise.

Still, after four years, I don't care for much of Mr Bush's politics. Had the Democrats not disposed of Liberman so quickly – my endorsement would have gone to the challenger rather than the incumbent.

Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn't like. To not veto a single bill in four years is a wretched legacy.

His proclaimed support of free trade withers at the slightest pressure from any sunset industry: steel makers, cotton growers, sugar producers and even synthetic-fiber bra manufacturers.

With his support of the FMA he crassly caved in to his party's more reactionary elements - ditching his support for states rights, the sanctity of the constitution and, quite likely, his own personal tolerance of homosexuality.

The major argument in favor of Bush was that he had the balls to stand up to Saddam, Bin Laden and Kim Jong-il. I believe that's true.

Bush is a strong president ... but only as long as he has an Army to support him. As soon as he meets an opponent that he can't use force on, such as the steel lobby, he caves.

He may be tough on terror, but he doesn't have the balls to stand up to a thriftless Republican congress, protectionist industry groups or his own party's 'base.'

I didn't like either Bush or Gore in 2000. I slightly favored Bush because Gore, even as a cardboard vice-president, was clearly a raving looney moonbat. Gore's further descent into Michael Moore-conspiracy land since his loss in 2000 has reinforced that opinion.

Despite that, Kerry offers me nothing. He was a free trader – until he discovered that his party preferred a leader that rants about outsourcing and 'Benedict Arnold CEOs.' He was for a brief moment supportive of regime change in Iraq, until he encountered Howard Dean. His record is uninspiring and contradictory.

There are a few opinion leaders who I generally trust that have endorsed Kerry for this election – notably Sullivan and the Economist. All of the criticisms they have leveled against Bush ring true to me. But they don't effectively argue for Kerry. They argue that Bush is such an incompetent fuck-up that removing him is the best option. Perhaps it would be - if Kerry wasn't such a wishy-washy, vacillating, shell.

Four years ago, on November 3rd, I woke up feeling rather pleased that there was no president elect. I had thought it would be rather nice if the Senate and House of Representatives were also in perpetual limbo. There were already too many laws, regulations, committees and bureaucracies – some time out would be a good thing.

I feel differently today. I do not care to see another four years of Michael Moore lunatic conspiracies and 'hail to the thief' jokes.

I hope for a clear victory and a quick reconciliation. If Bush wins, I hope he can correct his mistakes and will stand up to domestic statism as well as foreign authoritarianism. If Kerry wins, I hope he will form a few positions he can stick with.

But I doubt that will happen.

I predict that there will be a repeat of 2000. That the winner won't be named for several weeks. Then, after legal wrangling, I expect Bush will be declared winner. He will later be proven to have been elected by the slimmest of margins, but he will not be accepted as an honest victor, despite numerous subsequent studies.

Thankfully, I'm usually wrong.

Happy election day.

(Postscript: While I am almost always wrong when making electoral predictions, I am willing to bet that the PAP will win Singapore's looming elections.)