Voting should be based on more than politics

By Moe Naqvi
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Friday, October 15, 2004

As the presidential election nears, the majority of people already know who they are going to vote for, while a small mass of undecided voters are still trying to decide whether they should breathe in or breathe out first. Analyzing each candidate's stance on political issues is somewhat important, but not as important as examining the non-political issues.

Before choosing a final candidate for the office of president of the United States, everyone should first consider: "Which presidential candidate would make for a funnier impersonation on 'Saturday Night Live?'"

Bush is the orangutan look-alike that can be easily pulled off by a drunken senior citizen. Also, there is always a surefire guarantee that Bush will be constantly providing new material to "SNL" writers.

Now, Kerry can be made fun of too, but not to the extent of Bush. First of all, there aren't very many people who look like Kerry, and the ones who do resemble him have already been signed up for the new "Frankenstein" movie.

Second of all, Kerry is a very boring man. Only so many skits can be made of a man who has the relationship skills of a telemarketer and the voice of a monotonous Joe Lieberman.

George Bush is the kind of person who will always mispronounce a word, trip on a cordless phone and/or make a joke not funny.

He's a man of spunk, and as we all know from me, a man of spunk provides for hours of entertainment.

Although President Bush makes for an excellent "SNL" character, Kerry is married to the better woman. The spontaneous ketchup lady, Teresa Heinz Kerry, will be a way better first lady than Laura Bush for one reason: Teresa is a badass.

In July, Teresa gave a speech to Pennsylvanian delegates, and one of the topics she analyzed was the tone of modern political campaigning. During the speech she said, "We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." A journalist responded with a question clarifying what "un-American" meant and Teresa gave him a blunt, "Shove it."

Laura Bush, on the other hand, spends most of her time hosting charitable events, advocating equal rights for women and participating in teacher recruitment programs. Laura has no time to be "politically incorrect" or "crazy," but Teresa does, and that's what the American people want.

If you don't necessarily like Kerry, vote for him anyway because his wife is awesome. We can count on Teresa to keep us interested in politics.

Lastly, let us talk about our most homely of presidential candidates: Ralph Nader. If there ever were an underdog, Nader would be the complete epitome of such an individual. Nader seriously has no chance in hell of winning the election, but wouldn't it be fun to just see what would happen to the country?

America was a country founded on democratic values, and it allows for every individual to have an equal shot at utilizing his potential.

Nader's potential is to become the leader of this country, and the people of this country should give him a shot.

The United States is already pretty screwed up from Bush's tenure, and Nader couldn't possibly make it any worse.

And if he somehow does find a way to muddle the United States into an even worse position, then U.S. citizens can actually have a good reason to not vote for a third party ever again.

Right now the majority consensus to not vote for a third party is because "no one else will vote for it."

A vote for Nader is a vote for adventure. Give Nader the country just to see what he will do with it.

Now that we have analyzed the non-political issues surrounding President Bush, Sen. Kerry and Ralphie Nader, I encourage all individuals to go out and vote for a candidate based on the strongest point you think I provided.

Pick Bush, Kerry or Nader. Just pick one of those three because we can't vote for Bill Clinton again.

Moe Naqvi is a physiological sciences freshman. He can be reached at