The Day After Tomorrow

Whatever happens tomorrow, I’m not going to be happy.  This election cycle seems even more rancorous than the last three (Bush-Gore 2000, Bush-Kerry 2004, and Obama-McCain 2008), and if we were still not a little fragile from the events of 9/11, I think either of the 2004 or the 2008 elections could have created permanent rifts in the country.  Who knows…maybe they have.

So here we are, less than twelve hours until the polls open.  Early voting, of course, has already begun, but the real deal starts tomorrow.  And when the dust settles tomorrow night—if we’re not faced with some sort of Florida 2000 scenario, I’m dreading what lies in front of us, regardless of who wins.

Because we’ll all lose.

If Barack Obama gets re-elected, a great deal of the country, which seems to already hate him, will smugly be thanking liberals for four more years of socialism.  And a great deal of the country will be smugly dismissing conservatives with the election as proof that we don’t want mean, rich white guys as the ruling class anymore.  Of course, there will be a large contingent of people who will have again elected what they perceive as the lesser of two evils—people who will be uneasy having chosen someone who didn’t live up to the promise of four years ago over someone who seems to not care about the half of the country that isn’t going to vote for him.  The devil you know, you know?

And if Mitt Romney gets elected, a great deal of the country will smugly be dismissing everyone who ever even considered voting for Obama as a socialist liberal, unpatriotic and deserving of banishment to the fringes while the adults go back to work, while a great deal of the country will be smugly thanking Rush and Ann and FOX for leading us back to Karl Rove-style douchebaggery.  Of course, there will be a large contingent of people who will have again elected what they perceive as the lesser of two evils—people who will be uneasy having chosen a guy with a weird religion they know nothing about, who flip-flops a lot (but at least is a Republican) over someone who, while under his administration, things got a little better but not as much as he had promised.  This guy has to do better than the last guy, right?

Doesn’t Wednesday sound like fun?

As for me, about twelve hours until the polls open, I’m still undecided.  And by that, I mean I’m undecided about whether I’m even going to vote—for a couple of reasons.  First of all, I live in Illinois, and my vote won’t matter because of the Electoral College.  Obama will win Illinois whether I vote for him or Romney, so what’s one more vote more or less for either guy here?  Second, I’ve sort of come up with a theory—and if everyone subscribed to it, it could lead to real change.  That theory is, if no one votes, neither of the lesser of two evils can take office.  George Carlin had a great observation in one of his acts—and I’m paraphrasing here:  'If you vote, and you elect incompetent, dishonest people and they get into office and screw everything up, YOU caused the problem, YOU voted them in.  I, who stayed home on election day, had NOTHING to do with the mess YOU created.'

Amen, brother. 

I voted for Barack Obama four years ago, and I think he’s done lots of good things.  But while his supporters look at his specific accomplishments, I look at the overall tone of his body of work, and I don’t like how he’s done some of it.  Remember, four years ago, he campaigned on Hope and Change.  I took that to mean a new attitude in America after the divisiveness of the Bush years—a breath of fresh air; a genuine effort to work together with different points of view and come to a consensus on what’s best for America, not just for a political party.   Mission Not Accomplished.  He rammed through health care reform on party lines, he continually blamed his predecessor for the state of things, and he has demonized those fortunate enough to earn a good living.  Sound like Change?  Not so much.

If Barack Obama gets re-elected, I’m afraid of what the next four years will bring.  I think he will view a re-election as a mandate to continue the same kind of divisive campaign against the rich that got him re-elected.  It will be four more years of class warfare.  I’m not going to call it socialism like those on the right will, but class warfare is what it is.  I mean, yeah, generally, I think rich people try to get out of paying taxes and that they’ll screw anyone to hoard an extra dollar, but that’s America.  That’s their right as capitalists.  But how is class warfare a good thing?  How is making them seem like villains going to move the country forward?  It doesn’t solve the fundamental problem that we spend more than we take in—a problem that, despite what the right would have you believe, is NOT limited to Democratic administrations.  Plus, Republicans hate Obama so much, in a second term they will vindictively block anything he wants to do even if it means the country suffers for it, thereby guaranteeing a Republican president in 2016. 

But if Mitt Romney gets elected, I’m equally afraid of what the next four years will bring.  He might improve the economy and create jobs, though I think a president’s influence on the economy doesn’t really amount to much.  But you heard what he said in his famous 47% remarks (which he has since stepped back from, ever so slightly—not that I buy this supposed remorse).  He basically has no respect for half the country.  How can we have a leader like that?  And how can we elect a leader whose morals might dictate that certain kinds of discrimination are just fine?  Is it better to have an improving economy but diminished civil and human rights?  If so, at best, it makes it the 1950’s again.  At worst, it makes us China.

What it boils down to is that we have a president who, in my view, who hasn’t lived up to his promise running against a challenger who doesn’t deserve the office, with the losing side hell-bent on screwing the winning side--and the American people along with it.  My advice is to buy plenty of stock in K-Y.

Doesn’t Wednesday sound like fun?

Election Day

Wow. It's finally here. After all the campaigning, all the excitement on both sides, all the negativity, too--it's finally time to make our decision.

What a great day it is to be an American. We didn't invent this system, and other countries have followed suit, but you know what? We perfected it. Sure, there are flaws, but this is about as good as it gets.

Both candidates campaigned for change. I just hope either one can follow through. And I hope there's none of the vitriolic, bile-spewing hate that has surfaced among bar-stool voters on opposite sides of the fence that there was both times W was elected. I'm not just talking about the bumper stickers in 2004 that joked "Re-Elect Gore." I'm talking about the people who were saying things like "George W. Bush is not my president--I didn't vote for him." Guess what...he was, and still is for ten more weeks, your president. A president isn't just president of the people who voted for him, and he's not just president of only the people that agree with him. I didn't like W when he was handed the election over Gore, and I liked him even less when he beat Kerry. But he was my president.

It's easier for me to encourage people to accept the new president because it looks like the horse I'm backing is going to win, if you believe the polls. But if he doesn't, I'd like to think I can give the other guy a chance before I write him off. As I've written before, I believe they're both good, decent men who care deeply about this country and the need to do things differently. I just wish McCain hadn't listened to whomever he did while running his campaign--I think he would have done just as well, perhaps even better--if it weren't so negative. And I think our country would have been better for it.

One last note--did you see the ad the RNC started running last night? It really slammed Obama on Rev. Wright. Fine, that's a valid issue (I guess). But, my goodness--that was about the most horrifying ad I've ever seen. It hit on Obama and how his whole life he's associated himself with extremist radicals, and, oh my Gosh, he must be a closet radical, too. However, if you look at the subtext of the ad, it's not saying Obama is a radical. It's saying, "Don't vote for him--he's black!" If you think it's saying anything else, I'm sorry, but you need to look around for the turnip truck you just fell off of. That's the kind of bullshit I wish would disappear from politics. You see that kind of crap in local races all over the country (there's one in the Peoria area between Jehan Gordon and some other lady that's completely off the damn hook!), but that really should stay out of the national conversation. We're too good for that. I'm not saying there's no place for negative ads--hell, it wins elections--and I'm not saying Obama didn't run any negatives. But the Rev. Wright ad was shameful, especially on the eve of what will be such an historic day, regardless of who wins.

Between a Slug and a Turd

Yesterday I came across somebody’s blog entry that offered this brilliant analysis of this year’s election: the choices for president are between a slug and a turd. Aside from trying to figure out which candidate was the slug and which was the turd, I thought to myself that, wow, that was one disillusioned voter.

No doubt he was tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils, and I can certainly understand that—especially because the last go-round we had to pick between Howdy Doody Dumbass and Flip-Flop McHorseface. But this year, I think I disagree. I actually think we have two people running for president that are competent and genuine.

And, really, that’s all I want in a president: can you do the job, and will you put my interests ahead of your own and ahead of the special interests.

Regardless of which political wing you belong to, I think the problem most people have is with how those in office, once they get elected, make a beeline for the deep pockets of the power brokers that can get them re-elected. After all, what is the one thing all first-term politicians want that is exactly the same? Yep—a second term.

As I’ve said before, I don’t profess to belong to any political party because I think the vast majority of them on both sides are bought and paid for (see Blagojevich, Rod and Ryan, George). I will say, however, that this year, as a matter of complete disclosure, I’m supporting the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. But it’s not because I don’t like John McCain. Sure, I disagree with some of his policies (and certainly his awfully negative campaign—thank you, Karl Rove’s “How to Win an Election for Dummies”—not to mention his choice for VP), but I really think I could live with McCain in the White House.

Why?

Because I honestly think that John McCain, as much as Barack Obama, wants to change the culture in Washington, that he genuinely cares about the good of the people of this country more than his own skin, and that he’s able to step in and do the job with integrity and credibility. I didn’t agree much with Reagan, but was the economy good and did the Russians stay behaved? To quote Tina Fey, “You betcha!”

And to me, that’s all that matters. People get so wrapped up in superficial things (“he didn’t wear a flag pin!”) and irrelevant things (“he’s old!”), or latch onto one issue, that they become completely blind to anything else.
The fact of the matter is both men are qualified to lead this country in a manner befitting the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers.

But that hasn’t always been the case in the voting booth. So I started to think back about the history of presidential elections—and I came to the conclusion that for the first time in a very, very long time, we’ve actually got two good candidates for president.

Think about it:
2004: Bush vs. Kerry (The Lesser of Two Idiots)
2000: Bush vs. Gore (The One That Got Away)
1996: Clinton vs. Dole (Slick Willie and Captain Viagra)
1992: Clinton vs. Bush (Governor Grab-a-lot and Read My Lips)
1988: Bush vs. Dukakis (Dude, seriously?)
1984: Reagan vs. Mondale (The Cowboy and the Sacrifical Lamb)
1980: Reagan vs. Carter (Heston’s biotch and Joe Powerless)
1976: Ford vs. Carter (I’m glad I was only 4)
1972: Nixon vs. McGovern (Paranoia and The Prairie Populist)
1968: Nixon vs. Humphrey (Tricky Dick and LBJ's puppy)
1964: Johnson vs. Goldwater ("War! War!" or "More War! More War!")
1960: Kennedy vs. Nixon

Stop right there. Kennedy vs. Nixon. That might have been the last time we had two good candidates. Of course, we know what Nixon turned out to be, but back then, he was a sitting vice president under a very popular president (Eisenhower), and might very well have gotten elected had television not been so newly prominent. And, of course, there was Kennedy, with his youth, “vigah”, heroism, and optimism. We never did get to see the full measure of what he could have become, but that wasn’t exactly his fault.

Kennedy vs. Nixon was 48 years ago. My father wouldn’t have been able to vote in that election—he wasn’t old enough yet. How sad it must be for somebody of that generation who has never had two good, decent candidates from which to choose.

I’m as jaded and cynical as they come with respect to the political and governmental process in this country. But if you don’t think the two people running for president this year are at least genuine and competent, whether you agree with them or not, you’ve got a much, much darker view of America than I do. And I feel bad for you—because it might be another few generations before we have this opportunity again.

Single Issue Voters - one from the archive

Single Issue Voters

Originally written May 4, 2007

I don’t profess to belong to either major political party, so until candidates are set for the general elections, I usually don’t much follow what goes on until the races are down to one candidate from each of the parties. That being said, I was reading an account of the first Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library, which, presumably, took place between the stacks of “How Ronnie Whipped the Russkies” and “Jellybean Quarterly,” and I noticed a particular statement from one of the candidates had been called out and set apart as one of the “quotables” from the event.

The statement was from 61-year old Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who, if you do the math, has been around for a few notable events in the recent history of the planet. But I’m getting slightly ahead of myself.

Tancredo said, in regard to the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, “That would be the greatest day in this country’s history when (it) is overturned.”

Pardon me?

The “greatest day in this country’s history”? Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion, calling the overturn of Roe v. Wade “the greatest day in this country’s history” is laughable, at best, and horrifying, at worst. At the very least, it shows how much ignorance and hyperbole can be exhibited by the single-issue voter.

I’m going to give myself about thirty seconds, give or take a few, depending on how fast I can type, to come up with just ten days that are better than a potential day on which Roe v. Wade might be overturned. I’ll even include the event that happened on that day, so those losing contestants on “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader” don’t have to get out their encyclopediae.

In no particular order: July 4, 1776 (duh); June 6, 1944 (D-day); July 1, 1969 (Armstrong walks on moon); February 22, 1980 ("Do you believe in miracles? YES!"); January 1, 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation issued); August 18, 1920 (19th Amendment - Women's right to vote - ratified); September 12, 2001; January 20, 1981 (Iran Hostages released); April 30, 1789 (Washington’s Inauguration); December 15, 1791 (Ratification of the Bill of Rights). December 5, 1933 (repeal of Prohibition) just narrowly missed the list. Sorry.

Where would Roe v. Wade appear on that, or any list, of this country’s great days? Well, I suppose that would be where you stand on the issue. However, I would argue that even if you’re on the farthest feather of the rightest wing, such an event might not even crack the top 100. It might rank among the top political achievements ever (and, again, regardless of where you stand, it would indeed be quite the political achievement), but to include it as part of the list of this country’s greatest days would be a travesty.

And so I return to the idea of the single-issue voter—or candidate for that matter. Usually, these folks represent a pretty narrow interest; I’d call someone whose main criteria to support a candidate is his or her position on saving the spotted owl (tasty with a light brushing of oil and oregano, by the way) a “single-issue voter.” I wouldn’t call someone whose main interest lies with national security by the same moniker.

These kinds of voters and candidates scare me. I might be in favor of gay marriage, as an example, but I’m not going to vote for a candidate who supports such a position, but also thinks we should disband the army and only allow rich white men to vote. But there are people who vote like that. And Congressman Tancredo’s statement is an example of the rallying cry for those kinds of people. My question is, if he gets elected (which is highly unlikely) and he gets Roe v. Wade overturned, what would he do next?

Would he have the chops—or the interest—to take on other issues? Or would he sit back, put his feet up on the desk of the Oval Office and say, well, we accomplished the Greatest Thing Ever for this country, so there’s really nothing else to do, because everything else is comparatively minor?

You know, just like the Abraham Lincoln did after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
I guess what I’m trying to say is to encourage people to keep an open mind to more issues than just the one that’s most important to your own interests. After all, isn’t that the central idea for a democracy? Or have we gotten so red-state/blue-state that now it’s important as to which shade of red or blue we are?