Fuzzy election? Ask Ralph and John

"Gore."

"Bush."

"Gore."

"Bush."

Welcome to the mind of the undecided voter.

"Gore."

After the longest campaign in history-which started in December 1998, unless you are Lamar Alexander, in which case your campaign started in March 1996-somehow there are voters out there who cannot make up their minds.

"Bush."

We have two favorite sons whose connections and money bought them the nominations of the major political parties. We have two guys who dress the same and have a combined charisma equal to one-tenth of Bill Clinton's. We have an eternal exaggerator versus someone who cannot pronounce eternal or exaggerator. Isn't that how it is, Ralph?

"Gore."

We have the guy whose greatest accomplishment is the signing off of over 100 executions against the guy who solidified his support with a smooch. Ralph?

Well, not exactly.

"Bush."

And before you think that this column is going to knock down both candidates and then issue a blank check to third party candidates, let's make it clear: Ralph Nader may be a nice guy who has done a lot to making plastic bags safer and air bags slightly safer, but he is in no way whatsoever qualified to be the next president.

"Gore."

Nader is nothing more than a name on the "It" list. He represents the jean jacket of politics-chic for about a day, but now pretty drab. His candidacy, which seems to be solely about supporting a couple of radical ideals that are totally impractical because of the existence of reality.

"Bush."

And Nader is just not real. Neither is Pat Buchanan. Harry Browne is certainly not real; in fact he is so unreal that he makes Nader seem very believable-the same way that if we believe in a rabbit running around and bringing candy every April, Santa Claus suddenly seems plausible.

"Gore."

And that is just about what his campaign has become-a quest by Nader to prove something real that is as phony as a compassionate conservative who executes people.

"Bush."

The central premise of the Nader campaign-that the two candidates are the same person who stand for the same things-is totally invented. Look at foreign policy-Bush supports some kind of neo-isolationist policy that would have sat out Kosovo. Gore is promoting an ad hoc foreign policy that does not make the same broad generalizations about foreign affairs that Bush does.

"Gore."

It is like comparing an air bag (Bush) to a seatbelt (Gore). The difference between the two candidates on this issue is a testament to how much of a farce the Nader candidacy is. It is one thing to run on a set of issues that is way off the left wing. It is something else, though, to sell out principles and make untrue blanket accusations about your opponents. Gore and Bush are nothing alike-for more convincing, check out their stances on taxes, social security, gay equality and affirmative action. If that is not enough, examine Bush's and Gore's proposals on abortion, defense spending, Medicare and campaign finance reform. These boys are not running attack ads because they are in agreement.

"Bush."

Ralph Nader is one of the most confusing forces in the year's election and is only serving to cloud things up. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is not doing much better. He too is changing this election from the straight-talk express to a magical mystery tour.

"Gore."

McCain, who is most famous for his proposal to ban soft money, is endorsing the only viable candidate who wholly opposes the McCain-Feingold bill. The man who inspired thousands of New Hampshirites to reject Bush is quickly becoming chief cheerleader as he fights for reforms that sell short his own vision. He banged a kettle drum for reform but now sounds like a triangle. Hey pot, you're black.

"Bush."

Nader used to be a reformer, but now he is just a deceiver. McCain once stood up for what he believed in, but now he is bowing out. Maybe it should not be a surprise that this campaign is so close after all-what should be an easy decision is being clouded as former idealists sell out. Indecisiveness is not totally the fault of the major party candidates-Gore has been clear as a bell on his policies and Bush has been fuzzy as a ham radio.

"Gore."

Vote before your pendulum gets swung again.

Martin Barna is a Trinity junior and editorial page editor of The Chronicle.