Inconsistencies surround presidential race

Everyone grab a rifle: it’s hunting … er … campaigning season.

With the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary behind us, the race to select a Democratic candidate has been watched with unbearable scrutiny.

Meanwhile, George “Dubbya” Bush has been holding court for three years and is gearing up for a re-election bid.

Despite a lack of confidence in the president stemming from concerns about Iraq and the economy, questions surround the wisdom of changing the leadership at this time.

Who’s to say that Democrats have anything better to offer us?

In order to answer that, let’s first have a look at what Bush and his co-conservatives are offering us now.

Conservatives claim to defend the sanctity of life in opposing abortions, but many approve of the death penalty.

Conservatives denounce liberals for giving in to “special interest groups” but are themselves beholden to the gun lobby, big oil, big tobacco and big corporations.

Conservatives complain that the government needs to be scaled back, but sanction its intrusion upon the privacy of same-sex couples.

Conservatives believe celebrities should keep their political views to themselves, unless they happen to be governor of California.

Conservatives blamed “the cyclical nature of the economy” for months of joblessness and economic downturn, but are now ready to heap praise upon Bush’s tax cuts at the first sign of improvement.

If this is what the present holds, it is easy to see the merits of a Bush-free future.

But would Dubbya’s departure necessarily be an improvement?

Liberals demand tighter homeland security, but consider measures such as the Patriot Act to be invasive of privacy.

Liberals staunchly defend the right of children in public schools to refuse to salute the flag, but deny them the right to celebrate Christmas.

Liberals decry the violent extremism of abortion clinic bombers and “religious wackos,” but stand mute to the violent extremism of environmental and animal rights activists.

Liberals slam Bush for taking action in Iraq, but still argue that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who despertly needed to go.

Liberals constantly question ex-governor Bush’s intelligence, qualifications and presidential makeup, but allow non-officeholders Gen. Wesley Clark and Rev. Al Sharpton (and the volatile, high-strung Howard Dean) to seek the candidacy.

Before we fervently cast our vote one way or another, we should all take a moment to realize that contradictions such as these can be found in just about every candidate in the field.

No one contender has all the answers and no one contender will represent all of your ideals, whatever those ideals may be.

We should stop searching for a savior that will bring us a tailor-made America and start looking towards the best possible compromise.