This election year is a bit surreal. I turn on the news and I get the feeling I'm watching Nick At Night or a religious infomercial. On one hand we have a guy that looks like Herman Munster and is so dull that he'd put insomniacs fast to sleep. His running mate looks a bit like an overgrown Bobby Brady and has that disingenuous smile that only a trial attorney can master. You know the one, the cat that ate the canary.  On the other hand, the President reminds me of that guy on the 700 Club; you know the guy that implores you to say a prayer and then send a "love gift". What really bugs me is when the President gives an unscripted speech he has more pauses than Pauly Shore. I feel like screaming "spit it out!" at the screen. 

Needless to say, I'm not supporting either side this year. But there are some organizations out there that are trying to get young people excited and involved.  Which is noble cause, young people should become engaged in politics, because we have the biggest stake in the future. The problem I have is that these groups tend to just be schlock fronts for either major party (primarily the Democrats). They want young people to get excited over this election but they give us these two choices? Give me a break.  

And it's nothing new, every four years we are offered up two varieties on the same theme. Sure they may talk a different game but when it comes down to it, once elected they do what's in the best interest of retaining their power, not the people. The choice usually boils down to "the lesser of two evils".  Not very inspiring. 

Bill Clinton was an exception; he actually did inspire young people. He spoke their language and made a connection with them. Young people related to him and that's why he inspired record turn out among young people. When asked if he smoked pot, he replied "I didn't inhale". Most young people recognized the unseen wink that went along with that statement. We also have the famous MTV town hall meeting. Can you imagine John Kerry answering whether it was boxers of briefs? He would probably answer with his somber expression, "Well when I was young it was briefs, then I switched to boxers and now I alternate between the two."   Who knows how W would respond but given his folksy personality, he would probably field it a little like this, "Um� I �  I don't know, Laura usually takes care of those kind of things."  Whether young people actually agreed with his politics, Bill Clinton did make a connection with the kind of young people that "Rock the Vote" was trying to reach, those that didn't really care about politics but would vote because they "liked" the candidate. 

My problem with these "groups" that are supposed to energize the youth vote is that they play into the same old game. They elected Clinton, but the healthcare takeover attempt aside, he didn't really offer any significant change. Rock the Vote, MTV's Choose or Lose, Punk Voter, and the latest addition to the fold "Rock for Change". Even their titles are disingenuous. "Rock the Vote"? Great put some rockers on the ballot. Lemmy can't run but I'm sure he'd get a lot of votes and you know he wouldn't play the same old games the donkeys and the elephants play. "Choose or Lose"? More like Choose and Lose, because you're screwed if you go for either major party that has a vested interest in their power, not the ideals they claim to represent. Punk Voter?  Could you imagine John Kerry in the pit or having anything in common with a punker?  I thought punkers were for anarchy. The Democrats represent the exact opposite. 

The worst however is "Rock for Change". Let me ask you something, just how much change will we get by electing one career politician over another? Just how much credibility should we give millionaire rockers endorsing millionaire politicians?  Do either know what we--the common voter--have to deal with on a daily basis?  What change are they offering?  A slightly different variation on the same themes. I'm not talking rhetoric here, I'm talking policy issues.  On rhetoric you would think W is throwing poor people out into the streets, but he has actually spent more money on social programs than Clinton. On the war on terror? Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq. And even his recent rhetoric doesn't differ from W's. He says he would vote that way again and the platform adopted at the Democrat convention supports the war.   Where is the change?  Despite the change in the name of the party?  Sure they would do a few things differently but when it comes down to it, both parties play the same rigged game.  If you like big, ever expanding government, then by all means vote for either one of these guys and you'll get it. 

We would be better served if groups like these really did highlight that we do have choices for real change. If real change is what they are honestly after, every four years there are more than two candidates up for President. But most people think that they are throwing their vote away if they choose a third party candidate. I contend that you are only throwing your vote away if you stick with the status quo and vote for a candidate that you think is the "lesser of two evils".  If you are happy with the status quo and honestly support either major party candidate, fine.  Vote for them. But if you honestly want change, you are wasting your time supporting a donkey or an elephant.  

So I don't put much faith in their front groups. They don't offer real change and the bigger question is why should we care what a rock star thinks about politics? I think Alice Cooper had it right in a recent interview with the Canadian website Canoe. "If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal." 

Asking a rock star or actor for advice on politics is like asking the mailman how to perform brain surgery. If they really care about politics, then they should retire and run for office. (Hey Bruce, they need a new governor in New Jersey). I do agree that it's important for people to get involved in the process, especially young people. But I slap all of these front groups because they simply encourage involvement, as long as you are voting for one side of the two party system.  They don't encourage young people to go out and really learn about important issues or to look at all the options that voters have. They simply parrot the talking points of one of the major parties. 

There are choices for real change. You just have to look for them. And I slap the conventional wisdom that you throw your vote away if you don't vote for a donkey or an elephant. That's a game they play to keep you voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you are really engaged and interested in the future and want change, I say go out and study ALL of the options. Not just the two. If enough people wake up and do this, one of those little fringe parties could actually win and throw one of the two major parties out on their ass where they belong. (That's how the Republicans came to power). Unlike these groups, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but I will tell you that if you really want to rock the vote, then you need to open yourself up to all the choices and slap the notion that you have to buy into the two party system.  You only lose if you aren't aware that you have a real choice.  

Scott