Professor Coldheart ([info]perich) wrote,
@ 2008-02-05 11:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:Beach Boys - "Barbara Ann"
Entry tags:politics, rant

went to a dance, looking for romance
I don't know why you people continue to listen to my political blather. I've openly and repeatedly acknowledged that I don't vote and probably never will*. I'm also a bit of a crackpot. But still people argue with what I assert as if it had weight. Here, let me try this: reading my political opinions has been linked, but not definitively tied, with an increase in the risk of heart disease. You've been warned.

Inspired by a conversation I had last week with [info]candid, and since today's Super Tuesday, I'm going to rank the Big Four in order from Least Disliked to Most Disliked:

(1) Barack Obama (Dem., Oz): He's at least rhetorically in favor of ending one of America's conflicts in the Middle East. Plus, if his favorite TV show is The Wire, as he's repeatedly claimed, then he's at least sympathetic to the notion that the War on Drugs is failing. Also, saying, "I wouldn't mind Obama" gives me a lot of street-cred in young and liberal Massachusetts. These are probably the shallowest reasons ever to endorse a candidate, except for the reasons that 90% of the voting public uses. Note that this doesn't mean I like him.

(2) Mitt Romney (Rep., Mos Eisley): The great thing about an absolutely unprincipled mercenary is that you can count on him to go where the money is. It's the people with ethics you have to worry about. You know, the ones who say they're "defenders of liberty" and then sign warrantless wiretaps into law, or the ones who say "keep your laws off my body" and then ban trans fats. But Romney's so depraved it's predictable. I suspect he's too much of a huckster to mean most of the things he says (like "double Gitmo"). Congress can put the brakes on anything truly abysmal, like a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, and merely allow him to do all the stupid things that Presidents usually do. Note that this doesn't mean I like him.

(3) Hillary Clinton (Dem., Klingon): I could make more of the fact that she somehow managed to co-opt withdrawal from Iraq as a campaign plank without ever managing to explain why voting for the war in Iraq for the first five years was a good idea. But if I start calling politicians on changing their stances now, then, well, heh heh, that'd just be wacky. In sum: she's struck me as hawkish for years and the polarization between Democrat and GOP that the campaign season's brought on hasn't lightened her views.

(4) John McCain (Rep., Springfield Retirement Castle): John McCain is literally senile. I'm not exaggerating - I believe he's genuinely in the early stages of what will become dementia, Alzheimer's or just general cerebral collapse. He roasts Romney for supporting torture, but voted for the Military Commissions Act. He's considering withdrawing from public financing of his campaign because of the limits it imposes - limits that were written into a bill he authored. He favors the harshest punishments for medical marijuana users, despite the fact that his wife got off easy when abusing painkillers. He lit a fire under Congress to start investigating drug use in Major League Baseball four years ago, and is now gleefully accepting endorsements from convicted HGH smugglers.

Even by the low standards we apply to career politicians, McCain does not understand the consequences of his actions. He's insane. And I know that word gets bandied about a lot, so I don't mean "insane" like the really hardcore liberals think Bush or Cheney is insane. I mean "barely capable of goal-oriented thinking." I'm already bothered enough by the notion that the U.S.'s next President will start a war with Iran based on the same sloppy standards of evidence that got the U.S. into Iraq. But McCain could start a war in Iran because the radio told him to.

I don't see what the appeal is. If you want a hawk, vote Hillary, or Romney if you can't stomach crossing the party lines. If you want a guy who'll end torture, vote Obama. But could someone who supports McCain please tell me what the appeal is? Is it the idea that electing a man so demonstrably crazy will intimidate our enemies, foreign and domestic? "That's right - we voted a slavering old coot into the most powerful office in human history! Quit pestering us about the Kyoto Treaty, or next term we'll elect a dog! That's right, President Dog in 2012! We won't even give him an adorable name! Confront the unthinking eyes of our Commander-in-Chief!"

So that's my take on the subject.
________________________
* Nominate a candidate who'll end the War on Drugs, repeal the Military Commissions Act and balance the budget and you'll find me a more agreeable character. However, I consider this promise equivalent to, 'I don't vote and I probably never will,' so I feel pretty solid.




(Post a new comment)


[info]geektasticdave
2008-02-05 05:04 pm UTC (link)
What would it take to get you to vote? Would you vote for Ron Paul if he were considered as viable as those 4? Would you need assurance that your vote would be statistically significant? Would the candidate have to have identical viewpoints to your own?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:10 pm UTC (link)
I won't ask for identical views to mine, just "close enough to me" and "different from the other guys."

And Ron Paul has no statistically appreciable chance of winning, above and beyond the fact that he's either a racist or carries water for racists, so it's a non-issue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Lot
[info]ikilled007
2008-02-05 05:10 pm UTC (link)
Obama with a Democrat Congress and Bernanke as Frd Chairman might be just what the Doctor Kevorkian ordered for the United states of America. Here's hoping!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Lot
[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:13 pm UTC (link)
You're a sick individual, you know that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Lot - [info]ikilled007, 2008-02-05 05:19 pm UTC

[info]incontango
2008-02-05 05:13 pm UTC (link)
Perich, can I request a 200 word bit of fiction on life in McCain's American in like 2011?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:15 pm UTC (link)
Let me free up my schedule a bit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]duckierose
2008-02-05 06:18 pm UTC (link)
Yes, this would be awesome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]manley1
2008-02-05 05:13 pm UTC (link)
I often grapple with the dilemma of "should I vote" because I often don't feel as though I have enough information to make an informed decision. After realizing that so many other people, however, make these decisions all the time, it's alleviated my worries somewhat, though I still loathe having to check boxes on the form for local elections when I either don't care or don't know for whom I'm voting.

For the record, I voted for Hillary, but not because I'm a hawk. I'll probably end up putting my reasons why in LJ later, though I know it's going to invite some jeering. Whatevs. It's my vote.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:15 pm UTC (link)
It's my vote.

On that alone your opinion has more weight than mine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]splatterbone
2008-02-05 05:17 pm UTC (link)
I wonder if Mitt would fare lower in your scale if you were to assume that Congress couldn't put the brakes on him.

I particularly like this one:

"A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:20 pm UTC (link)
"I have a secret plan! Vote for me and I may implement it! Or I may not! Element of surprise. Mind games, baby."

Okay, so maybe he's less amoral and more naive than I thought. The ranking stays the same, sadly enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]eyelid
2008-02-05 05:40 pm UTC (link)
People like McCain because they are so deluded they think he's some sort of centrist. Because he was for immigration reform - which helps big companies - and against torture, sort of, only not.

here's a reason to like Obama, from the xkcd author.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ikilled007
2008-02-05 05:45 pm UTC (link)
The author of that tripe is a useful idiot. There's no better way to put it. Anyone who puts his or her faith in a politician is a ridiculous person worthy of contempt. He is the real deal? What a fucking tool.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]eyelid, 2008-02-05 05:59 pm UTC

[info]abyrneseyeview
2008-02-05 05:45 pm UTC (link)
Combine that with this, and it looks like he's going to Costco corruption: why let special interests bribe candidates a few thousand dollars at a time when you could bribe the electorate with $287 billion in redistributive handouts? I can't wait!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]eyelid, 2008-02-05 06:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]abyrneseyeview, 2008-02-05 06:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eyelid, 2008-02-05 06:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]abyrneseyeview, 2008-02-05 06:54 pm UTC

[info]abyrneseyeview
2008-02-05 05:40 pm UTC (link)
He's considering withdrawing from public financing of his campaign because of the limits it imposes - limits that were written into a bill he authored.

Eyeroll. You're mad because he 1) made a rule, and 2) is now playing by that rule? I'm assuming you're actually only mad at 1). Right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:54 pm UTC (link)
Tongue-stuck-out. Obama and Hillary have both conducted their primary campaigns without accepting public money. So it's at least feasible. Either McCain didn't know that this would be an issue for him when he decided to take public money, or he thought he could take it for just as long as he needed and then back out - which he could, if the Federal Election Commission had a quorum currently.

And I'm not mad at John McCain for being senile. I'm just confused as to how anyone could think that's a defensible trait.

(My reaction to the "matching funds" story was actually cackling, not rage)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]vlvtjones, 2008-02-05 09:50 pm UTC

[info]cluebyfour
2008-02-05 07:41 pm UTC (link)
Who's mad? Watching McCain get hoisted on his own petard is rather entertaining.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ikilled007, 2008-02-06 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cluebyfour, 2008-02-06 02:27 am UTC

[info]vlvtjones
2008-02-05 05:52 pm UTC (link)
Write someone in, then. Or get off your duff and start your own political action group and start putting a candidate together.

Think about it this way: you have a huge lawn, and a ton of leaves have fallen all over it from the season change. And you hate it. You can either a) do nothing and wait for someone you don't even know to maintain your lawn for you, without payment or other obligation (how awesome! Never gonna happen); b) do nothing and hope that there is some kind of giant wind storm that blows all the leaves into the neighbor's yard, effectively making it their problem (woo hoo! Have at it, Mr. Jones, even though now you have to do twice the work because I'm an asshole!), or c) get a rake. You might not get ALL the leaves on the first go, but at least you can bag most of them up.

You can't wish your perfect candidate to appear in front of you, and you can't wish for everyone else to read your mind and build your political ideals for you. You have to make the steps yourself. Sorry to say, but sitting on your ass is just so fucking lazy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 05:59 pm UTC (link)
I don't find the analogy helpful. I own my lawn; I don't "own" this country.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]splatterbone, 2008-02-05 06:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vlvtjones, 2008-02-05 06:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]perich, 2008-02-05 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vlvtjones, 2008-02-05 08:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]perich, 2008-02-05 09:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vlvtjones, 2008-02-05 09:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ikilled007, 2008-02-06 12:27 am UTC

[info]candid
2008-02-05 05:56 pm UTC (link)
Man, why do you always have to take all my ideas and do a better job with them?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

praise from caesar
[info]perich
2008-02-05 06:00 pm UTC (link)
I take it I have your support for the Committee to Elect President Dog?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: praise from caesar - [info]candid, 2008-02-05 06:02 pm UTC
Re: praise from caesar - [info]perich, 2008-02-05 06:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]theinimitable_l, 2008-02-05 07:19 pm UTC

[info]eruv
2008-02-05 06:03 pm UTC (link)
But could someone who supports McCain please tell me what the appeal is?

I voted for McCain because he was all I had left. He's not of the Jesus wing of the Party. He pisses off some of the people who piss me off. I had to decide whether the idea of campaign finance laws or socialized medicine scared me more, and I went with the latter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 06:09 pm UTC (link)
... well, you have your reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

also - [info]eruv, 2008-02-05 06:28 pm UTC
Re: also - [info]perich, 2008-02-05 08:44 pm UTC

[info]uncacreamy
2008-02-05 06:07 pm UTC (link)
I was amazed to learn that some people viewed the failure of Amsterdam on The Wire as an endorsement that legalizing drugs wouldn't work.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 06:11 pm UTC (link)
the failure of Amsterdam on The Wire

(1) "Hamsterdam."

(2) I'd rap you on the knuckles for spoiling the end of S3 (which I'm only halfway through), but I could kind of see that one coming.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]uncacreamy, 2008-02-05 06:13 pm UTC

[info]mwitty
2008-02-05 07:14 pm UTC (link)
In my mind, the appeal of Obama calling The Wire his favorite TV show cannot be overstated. Presidential politics has been a contest of "Who can blow the most sunshine up the country's collective ass?" since before I can remember. To call the most brilliantly pessimistic hour of weekly TV his favorite may have been the bravest stance any of the big four have taken this campaign.

(Reply to this)


[info]pasquin
2008-02-05 09:04 pm UTC (link)
I noticed you gave Ron Paul a pass.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]perich
2008-02-05 09:07 pm UTC (link)
I said BIG Four.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Not that you asked, but...
[info]duckalmighty
2008-02-07 04:22 am UTC (link)
As a registered Republican, I voted yesterday for Fred Thompson -- precisely because he was no longer in the race. I loath the idea of voting for any of the 3 remaining GOP candidates. If "none of the above" was on the ballot, I would have voted for it.

What I should have done was what my father did in '72 when McGovern was running -- changed party affiliation to Democrat in order to vote against Hillary Clinton twice this year. Though, the way things are going, that 2nd vote would wind up being a 3rd party vote -- as it likely will anyhow. Que sera sera...

FWIW: I think your not voting is a minor tragedy. I disagree with you, I'm guessing, slightly less than 1/2 of the time (me being a conservative, you being a libertarian more in the libertine/Bush-hating Nick Gillespie mold then the dynamist/Virginia Postrel mold). Still, your opinions and your analyses of issues are much more informed than the majority of nincompoops who will go to the polls to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, or vote for Huckabee because he loves Jesus, or vote for McCain because it's his turn to run for the White House (the GOP has a real problem with this mindset; witness Bob Dole's candidacy). You should, if nothing else, be canceling the vote of a dunce. Even if I disagree with your conclusion, I'm confident that you at least would have reasoned out a conclusion. Plus, you're not prone it seems to rank populism, or swayed by strictly emotional appeals (despite the heated tone of your posts at times).
I've read your rationale for not voting, and you've made a value-based decision from which I, nor anyone else, will likely dissuade you. Nor should I, given that you've weighed the decision yourself.
Still, given your values and what you've written here in this post, it would seem that you think Obama to be the most agreeable candidate that can win and can advance your values. So, why deny that candidate your vote? By your denial of support, you make it that much less likely that policies -- and policy reversals -- you favor will see the light of day.
I don't expect this mini-plea to sway you, and I don't write it with that expectation. I've just read these posts too often -- and truth be told, you've written posts like these too often -- for your continued disengagement to make sense.
But I ain't mad at'cha, got nothin' but love for ya. Do your thing, boy. :-D>

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…