- The reason you’re voting for a candidate is because he will make you “safer” (skipping the double cheeseburger – and maybe a little exercise? – will do a hell of a lot more for your life expectancy than any American President)
- You watch CNN, Fox News, or any other MSM political coverage to stay abreast with the race but have yet to watch a debate in its entirety (hint: coverage of the debate and the actual debate are two completely different things)
- You don’t believe the opposing candidate has any positive policy initiatives (they do agree on some things)
- You cite “God” “God’s teachings” or “God’s will” as a reason for supporting your candidate (have you learned nothing from the past eight years?… yes religious right I’m looking at you)
Leave any of your own in the comments section. The idea is these conditions should apply to BOTH sides 🙂
Monday Morning Blogger 
Your sole reason for choosing a candidate is they’re the same gender or race as you.
you disregard a candidate based on age or experience. The current and ever evolving state of geopolitics has little precedent to rely upon, now more than any other time in history. (I realize the last part of that comment has a Obama slant but the age goes for both. But then again as Chris Rock said about McCain’s age, “How you going to make decisions about the future when you aren’t going to be here?”
@David: I agree that age shouldn’t really come into play. However, experience is a necessary factor to look at. While the only job experience that qualifies you to be President is previously being President (looking at you Grover Clevland), you can still gain some insight into a future Presidents managerial style by looking at their past.
McCain: A career military man who’s used to dealing with a command and control organization. He’s also known for having a short fuse during his time as a Senator.
Obama: Much more of a decentralized leader, having spent time doing grassroots work in Chicago. Also spent 12 years as a lecturer at University of Chicago where students were impressed by his ability to present both sides of an argument.
Which is better? That’s your decision. But discounting experience when selecting a leader is silly.
Miller – I think you’re missing David’s point. By “experience” I believe he simply means the amount of time served in public office. The kind of “experience” you’re speaking to is past actions which undoubtedly must be taken into consideration
Reread my post a bit more carefully. At no point in my original post am I discounting experience but rather criticizing those who completely disregard Obama’s candidacy based SOLELY on his lack of said experience and consequentially not only fail but even attempt to educate themselves on his stances on the various issues that are key in this election. To validate your point (which is so obvious, it shouldn’t even need validation), yes experience is a necessary factor to look at, but should not be the ONLY factor to look at, which is in the vein of the original blog post, satirizing the narrow minded and uneducated voter.
Now that you’re clear on my original post we could have a more enjoyable and thought provoking debate on how that experience shapes each candidate’s general foreign policy theory, most specifically McCain’s isolationism versus Obama’s engagement.
Or we can keep the spirit of the blog post alive and debate the following statement:
You SHOULD be allowed to vote even if you do not posses a government issued ID…
take your pick..
So much for amusing anecdotes…
David, do you mean (1) have a right to possess an ID but don’t have one (like me losing all forms of ID on Nov 4) or (2) Don’t have a right to an ID (meaning illegal alien)
I’m not sure you’re going to be able to support that claim in either case, keep in mind voting is a privilege not a right
Seems like I did indeed miss David’s point. Serves me right for trying to debate at 6am. So yes, we’re in agreement that experience should be taken into account. I also agree that it’s wrong to discount a candidate due to lack of political experience. As I said earlier the only job that really prepares you for being President is previously being President, and even that is no guarantee of success (see: GWB term 2).
I’ll opt for the former debate since Joe is correct, voting for President is not a right, but a privlege granted by individual states. And in any event the Supreme Court has already ruled that ID checks are kosher since “states [have] an interest in deterring voter fraud.”
Obama’s engagement, and promises of future engagement, are exactly what we need right now. We’ve spent 8 years giving off a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude and its earned use the ire of the world. McCain may promise isolationism, but any attempt to create a 21st century Monroe Doctrine will fail miserably. We’re far too interconnected with the rest of the world to try and live in a bubble.
A few from Friend Feed – http://friendfeed.com/e/87ee7885-bcfd-1f53-15f9-9dcdea5f13f4/You-Shouldn-t-be-Allowed-to-Vote-in-the-2008/
…If you vote a straight party ticket because it’ll get you out of the booth faster
… the only reason you choose one party over the other is because Daddy did
that was just dumb… everyone should vote
Everyone should vote, but that list is spot on