Wherein I Ramble On For a Country Mile

Ech. Politics.

I watched a few hours of the DNC on Monday. Then I watched it yesterday, and also much of today. As it happens, I'm a bit of a masochist.

I'm guessing that it was once a quaint pep rally sort of affair, but now it's morphed into something decidedly more creepy. Granted, I initially caught it early in the day, so the convention hall was half-empty. The house band played tired hits from the 70's, as aging yuppies pretended to have fun. Speaker after speaker intoned the magic words, "...our next president of the United States of America, Barack...OBAMA!!!!", and the crowd went wild. Over and over again. It got better as the crowd got bigger, and the two Clintons gave great speeches. Even John Kerry came ready with a decent speech. It was all very exciting.

I took a quiz on some website that claimed to be able to match you up with the ideal candidate, based on your response to "policy" questions. Those who know me probably know that I am: 1)anti-stupid-warmongering, but not anti-military--we need to have some teeth and claws, 2)pro-choice, especially for cases that involve a medical necessity, 3)supportive of minority rights, but somewhat conflicted on affirmative action as it stands today, 4)supportive of teachers' unions and higher pay for police and firefighters, 5)generally OK with gun ownership with some sensible restrictions, 6)disgusted with the "war on drugs" as a huge waste of resources, 7)someone who sees no reason to restrict gay marriage or adoption, and 8)very interested in subsidizing research into alternative energies to break the addiction to fossil fuels. All of these issues are addressed by most candidates. As it turns out, my strongest matches are the Green Party's Cynthia Mckinney, and the Socialist Party's Brian Moore! (followed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Ralph Nader. McCain was at the bottom of my list).

I researched a bit of the top two candidates, and realized that I couldn't cast my vote their way. Mckinney just lacks the necessary experience, and appears to be too closely tied to her personal fight for African American equality. I'm just not sure how much more can be legislated in this area--the main problem is in the hearts of people, and the only cure is time. In her time in congress, she introduced 5 pieces of legislation, one of which was a call for the expeditious release of documents pertaining to the death of Tupac Shakur. Seriously? On the socialist front, Moore calls for the closure of all overseas military bases. This strikes me as such a singularly bad idea as to make me question his overall judgement.

This leaves Obama and Nader. Obama seems nice, and he appears to be doing all the right things to get elected. However, he's still just a Democrat, and the Dems haven't really done anything to make me swoon in awhile. Over the last eight years, the adjective that keeps springing to mind is 'inept'. They rolled over more times than I can count, so there's no guarantee that they won't do it again in the future. They couldn't even defeat GW Bush in 2004.

Nader is often touted as a 'waste of your vote'. He's quite intelligent, but not very charismatic--I'm actually more impressed with his running mate, Matt Gonzalez. I don't think that a vote for Nader is a wasted vote, nor do I think that it necessarily hands the election to McCain. I live in a deep blue district, so my vote for Nader would register as "disaffected", or "none of the above", and wouldn't touch Obama's ready victory here. However, even if Nader was elected, he wouldn't survive to his inauguration; he has some proposals about reducing or discontinuing specific military hardware (mostly airplanes) that would affect the livelihood of some large and powerful military suppliers. These types of proposals are more dangerous than having the wrong color skin in this country, as foretold by D.W. Eisenhower.

I am disaffected. I despise the way politics works in this country, in that both sides want to control the ball, but neither side wants to move it. There is no honor at all, only lies and half-truths. One possible answer is a strong third party, but it would take such extraordinary effort to make that a reality, and even then, after all that hard work, it could end up being subsumed by one of the old parties. I can't see any way for a third party to worm its way in to access the pressure points of Washington power, most of which are simply very influential people who are beholden to the current system. So we're stuck with the two-party system.

The one issue that is really important to me as I watch my daughter grow older--an issue that has not come up once in 365+ days of campaigning, and probably won't come up in any of the pretty speeches in Denver over the next two days--is the increasing strength of the executive branch. Clinton got the line-item veto. Bush, Jr. has been using signing statements whenever Congress goes against his will. For those who are unfamiliar, a signing statement is when the president grudgingly signs a bill that was passed by congress, but includes some text that indicates that he will reserve the right to ignore the legislation if he feels like it. This is legal, but Bush has used this perquisite more often than all other presidents combined. Additionally, he's used the office of the Attorney General to shore up even more power for the executive branch by using the twin strategies of executive privilege and national security. It's completely disgusting, and it undermines our basic checks and balances. No one is talking about this. Why should they, when all they have to do is talk about "the American dream" and gas prices to get the populace riled up. We're getting farther away from a representative government with every election.

Rant OFF.