According to the mainstream media the democratic race is all but over and Obama has already won. To be fair, they already called it over in Clinton's favor 6 months ago. In much the same way the Republican nominee was guaranteed to be McCain only after it was guaranteed to be Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani.
I've made no attempt to hide the fact that Obama is not my favorite candidate. I don't want him to get the nomination but if he does I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. That said, I don't think his current bounce in the polls has much to do with him gaining any ground. Sure he's won a lot of states in a row, but most of those are less populous states in fly-over-country. In other words, he's winning in states that he can't take in the fall anyway, the republican party is too good at uniting behind a candidate (even if they don't entirely like him) to allow inroads into the solidly red states. Clinton on the other hand has been doing well in the larger / more populous states (NY, CA, NJ, MA) as well as the swing states (PA, MI, FL, OH).
The largest states Obama has taken are Illinois, Georgia, and Virginia. In terms of the electoral college those are almost worth California (49 vs 55). Until the last week of nearly incessant reporting on how many states (regardless of their delegate counts or usefulness in the fall) Obama has taken in a row, Clinton was leading by a significant margin in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.
I hate to say that some states don't matter but its the truth. No democrat is going to take Georgia or Texas or most of the Midwest. No republican is going to take New York or Massachusetts or most of the Northeast. The only states with significant electoral votes (more than 15) that swing are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The other states are either predictably red/blue with minimal effort or so small that they aren't worth the time and money to sway.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Post I Really Hoped I Wouldn't Have to Write
This wasn't supposed to happen again. At the very least it shouldn't have happened before the conventions. It's that time of the election season again The third party kook of the year throws his hat into the ring. I use kook in the nicest possible way. For the most part these are or at least were at one time perfectly reasonable candidates that have decided to eschew the two major parties. Generally they claim this is a principled stance. They say that the two major parties are corrupt and that only an outside influence can save Washington. I'm fairly certain that they're delusional. Modern third party candidates seem to have been born with both a messiah and a martyr complex. They feel it is their duty to change everything and that only they can save us from the two party system. They also feel that the only way to save us is to stand alone and die (at least politically) for their cause.
Personally I find it is generally more productive to actually be in a position to effect change than to make a principled stand. Making a stand on principles has a place. In order for it to be effective there has to be someone to take up your cause for you. The whole point of a principled stand is to set yourself up for failure and, in the process, propel your ideals into power.
Nader has once again decided to run, thus dashing my hopes for a reasonable 3rd party candidate. (Not that I would've voted for them, but it would've been interesting to write about.) Nader is running on the platform (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Get off my lawn you whippersnappers!' Now there's probably more to his platform than that but honestly I don't care that much. He can claim to be a serious candidate all he wants, and there was probably even a time when that was true, but that time has long since passed.
I'm not one of those who blames Nader for Gore losing in Florida in 2000. Had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won the state, but, if Gore had been a stronger candidate Nader wouldn't have made a difference. I am however tired of his soapbox. There are few things that annoy me more than people who adamantly refuse to help change what they complain about. Nader shows up every four years and complains about corruption and environmentalism then drops back off the radar. I'm sure he's keeping busy with charitable works and all that, but if he cares enough about the political scene in Washington he should make an effort to get there. Running for Governor, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives would be a start in taking his message out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of action.
This is the general problem third party candidates (and their staunch supporters) always seem to have. Instead of building a base of support, working their way through the lower levels of government, they try to shoot the moon and hope a base fills in underneath them. They never seem to understand that they can't overcome governmental inertia by sheer force of will. Most of these third parties aren't unreasonable; they could build that base; but no one has the patience for it. When everyone demands their specific changes immediately none of the changes get made. Compromise and patience may not be the most appealing answers, but it's the only way to make actual progress.
Personally I find it is generally more productive to actually be in a position to effect change than to make a principled stand. Making a stand on principles has a place. In order for it to be effective there has to be someone to take up your cause for you. The whole point of a principled stand is to set yourself up for failure and, in the process, propel your ideals into power.
Nader has once again decided to run, thus dashing my hopes for a reasonable 3rd party candidate. (Not that I would've voted for them, but it would've been interesting to write about.) Nader is running on the platform (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Get off my lawn you whippersnappers!' Now there's probably more to his platform than that but honestly I don't care that much. He can claim to be a serious candidate all he wants, and there was probably even a time when that was true, but that time has long since passed.
I'm not one of those who blames Nader for Gore losing in Florida in 2000. Had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won the state, but, if Gore had been a stronger candidate Nader wouldn't have made a difference. I am however tired of his soapbox. There are few things that annoy me more than people who adamantly refuse to help change what they complain about. Nader shows up every four years and complains about corruption and environmentalism then drops back off the radar. I'm sure he's keeping busy with charitable works and all that, but if he cares enough about the political scene in Washington he should make an effort to get there. Running for Governor, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives would be a start in taking his message out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of action.
This is the general problem third party candidates (and their staunch supporters) always seem to have. Instead of building a base of support, working their way through the lower levels of government, they try to shoot the moon and hope a base fills in underneath them. They never seem to understand that they can't overcome governmental inertia by sheer force of will. Most of these third parties aren't unreasonable; they could build that base; but no one has the patience for it. When everyone demands their specific changes immediately none of the changes get made. Compromise and patience may not be the most appealing answers, but it's the only way to make actual progress.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
DOMA, DADT, and Penguins...
Monday, February 18, 2008
What’s in a name?
On the bright side, this campaign season gay issues (marriage, adoption, DOMA, DADT, etc.) have been pretty quiet. I say 'on the bright side' not because I don't think those are important issues, but because I think they're issues that tend to get abused and horribly mismanaged. I would rather see a slow steady path toward progress than an all or nothing screaming match that inspires knee-jerk reactions (see: DOMA, DADT, the Federal Marriage Amendment, statutes in 49 states, etc.).
I have to admit I actually did some reading for this one. Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader by Andrew Sullivan. Granted, it didn't tell me much that I didn't already know, but I wanted to cover my bases on this one (plus the bookstore didn't have the novel I was looking for and I needed something to read before bed).
The odd part is that many of the opponents of gay marriage aren't opposed to extending the provisions to gay couples. They favor the 'civil union' answer to gay marriage. For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why that doesn't reek of 'separate but equal' to the proponents, but they insist that it isn't. The arguments in favor of gay marriage are all pretty straightforward and, ultimately, boring. Equality, fairness, truth, justice, and the American way, and other high minded ideals that, while true, do not make for interesting reading material. Instead we'll be perusing (and attempting to counter) the more entertaining arguments against gay marriage.
These could be ordered in any number of other ways... they aren't... but they could b
1) Lassie
This is my favorite one. If you let a man marry another man, then you'll have to let a man marry a dog. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.) The people who use this argument are fond of asking why we can't allow it since it doesn't hurt any person and it's just a moral distinction. To them I say okay. I challenge anyone to find me a dog (or any other animal) that can sign a legally binding contract. Until a dog is smart enough to understand, accept, and be bound by a contract they can't get married. Once they can I suppose it would be a different story, but if we have sentient dogs and cats running around I think we have bigger problems to worry about.
Moving down the line of poor arguments against gay marriage we hit incest. At least both parties are capable of signing legally binding contracts this time. The fact is that the statutes against incest are pretty weak anyway. In general its legal as long as they're at least as distant as first cousins, though it depends on the state. Closer relationships than that (parents, siblings, etc.) are illegal for reasons other than morality. Mainly medical concerns (which are not as significant as they once were) and equality of power. A modern marriage is a union of equals. There is no equality between parents and children, no matter how old they are. The parent always wields the authority over the child. Between siblings that equality could exist, but it rarely does.
Stay tuned for the sequel "DOMA, DADT, and Penguins."
Monday, February 11, 2008
"Yes We Can"... fail
I can almost feel the dirty looks I'm going to get from most of my friends for writing this, but hopefully they won't hurt me too badly. But in my defense, it's their own fault for making me want to write this.
The more I watch the election results come in the more convinced I am that Obama can't win in the general election. This comes after Obama won all three primaries last week and is likely to win in Maryland and Washington D.C. by similar margins while Virginia will probably go to him but might be a closer race. This is the part where most of my friends get excited and say "See look! He can compete in red states!" And that's true... sort of...
Obama and Clinton have managed to neatly divide the Democratic base. He wins with the young, the educated, the wealthy, blacks, and men. She wins with the old, the less-educated, the poor, whites and latinos, and women. This is great for the primary, but come general election time it'll be risky.
Obama is in many ways the anti-McCain. Young vs. old, black vs. white, democrat vs. republican, etc. But they both appeal to the moderate center of the country. In general I find this to be a good thing, I want moderates in power but I also want a Democrat in the oval office. Obama appeals in red states but hasn't really come through in the traditional blue powerhouse states like Massachusetts (in spite of the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements), New York, California or polling particularly well in traditional battleground states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
Normally that wouldn't be a problem. Blue states aren't going to swing red just because they don't like a moderate democrat. They might however swing for a moderate republican over a moderate democrat. Obama doesn't excite the liberal core enough to lock in the weaker blue states which leaves them open to McCain while McCain seems to have found his place both as a moderate and in the conservative base. Obama might be able to excite the base after the convention but by then McCain will have been running virtually unopposed for months which can only end badly for the democrats.
The more I watch the election results come in the more convinced I am that Obama can't win in the general election. This comes after Obama won all three primaries last week and is likely to win in Maryland and Washington D.C. by similar margins while Virginia will probably go to him but might be a closer race. This is the part where most of my friends get excited and say "See look! He can compete in red states!" And that's true... sort of...
Obama and Clinton have managed to neatly divide the Democratic base. He wins with the young, the educated, the wealthy, blacks, and men. She wins with the old, the less-educated, the poor, whites and latinos, and women. This is great for the primary, but come general election time it'll be risky.
Obama is in many ways the anti-McCain. Young vs. old, black vs. white, democrat vs. republican, etc. But they both appeal to the moderate center of the country. In general I find this to be a good thing, I want moderates in power but I also want a Democrat in the oval office. Obama appeals in red states but hasn't really come through in the traditional blue powerhouse states like Massachusetts (in spite of the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements), New York, California or polling particularly well in traditional battleground states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
Normally that wouldn't be a problem. Blue states aren't going to swing red just because they don't like a moderate democrat. They might however swing for a moderate republican over a moderate democrat. Obama doesn't excite the liberal core enough to lock in the weaker blue states which leaves them open to McCain while McCain seems to have found his place both as a moderate and in the conservative base. Obama might be able to excite the base after the convention but by then McCain will have been running virtually unopposed for months which can only end badly for the democrats.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Well I was going to post something earlier today about gay marriage or abortion or some such issue (and something on those topics will come up sooner or later) but something very strange seems to have happened while I was at lunch. Apparently Mitt Romney decided to withdraw from the race. I can honestly say I'm surprised. I thought he was much too stubborn to bow out before the convention, partly because he always said he would be sticking it out until the convention as recently as Tuesday.
On the one hand, strategically it was his best move, on the other hand I was really hoping the Republicans would get dragged into a slugging match up through the convention the way the Democrats are still set up to do. At this point McCain really can start shifting over to appeal to moderates. Sure Huckabee and Paul are still technically running, but Huckabee never capitalized on his Iowa win the way he could have, and let's face it, Paul is almost entirely unelectable. Unless something goes horribly wrong (e.g. huge scandal, McCain dies, etc.) McCain will be the Republican nominee in a few months.
The interesting question now is: Who will his VP candidate be?
For obvious reasons right now both Romney and Huckabee are being speculated about. Other names that are being bandied about in forums and speculative news articles include Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, Powell, Guilianni, and about 2 dozen other Governors and Senators. As to what McCain has planned I can only guess.
Romney and Huckabee both have obvious benefits and drawbacks. Romney can help make the northeast and the west competitive in ways they haven't been in years. Huckabee shores up the religious conservative credentials that McCain is lacking which will help in Florida and pretty much lock the south. On the down side they've both been fighting McCain for the last 3 months and not pulling punches so they'd have to sway the public on their change of heart, but I think they're both charismatic enough to pull it off. Guilianni falls into the same category, helping in much the same way as Romney but without exciting the conservative base at all so he's probably out of the running.
Lieberman would certainly be an interesting (if highly unlikely) choice. The Democrats would be hard pressed to beat them on a message of post partisanship and change. It's hard to argue that you're less partisan than an ostensibly cross-party ticket. (I should admit now that I really don't like Lieberman. 8 years ago I did, but I lost respect for him when he abandoned the Democratic party after he lost his last primary in Connecticut.) A McCain / Lieberman ticket could plausibly sweep the entire country, it probably wouldn't if only because Massachusetts is a bit contrarian but it's conceivable which is more than anyone has been able to say in many years.
Colin Powell would be another interesting choice, he's still widely respected even after the incidents while he was Secretary of State. He's still an unlikely choice though, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. He's a socially moderate, ex military septuagenarian and the ticket already has one of those. He might be moderate enough to carry the center but Lieberman is better for that route.
Pawlenty and Ridge I admittedly know much less about. I vaguely remember Ridge from the 2000 campaign but that's about it so I had to pull a little bit about them from wikipedia. Ridge is decidedly less likely than Pawlenty in my opinion. His time as Secretary of Homeland Security might hurt his otherwise moderate and northeastern credentials. Pawlenty seems to be in many ways a foil to McCain. He's a young, charismatic, moderate conservative from a moderately democratic state that could swing with him.
Ultimately its hard to guess who he'll pick. If he decides he wants a conservative Republican ticket it'll probably be Romney with Huckabee being the second best choice. If he wants a moderate Republican ticket expect Pawlenty with a slim chance of Guiliani. If he takes the leap of faith for a real campaign of change and moderation it'll have to be Lieberman or Powell if Lieberman declines.
On the one hand, strategically it was his best move, on the other hand I was really hoping the Republicans would get dragged into a slugging match up through the convention the way the Democrats are still set up to do. At this point McCain really can start shifting over to appeal to moderates. Sure Huckabee and Paul are still technically running, but Huckabee never capitalized on his Iowa win the way he could have, and let's face it, Paul is almost entirely unelectable. Unless something goes horribly wrong (e.g. huge scandal, McCain dies, etc.) McCain will be the Republican nominee in a few months.
The interesting question now is: Who will his VP candidate be?
For obvious reasons right now both Romney and Huckabee are being speculated about. Other names that are being bandied about in forums and speculative news articles include Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, Powell, Guilianni, and about 2 dozen other Governors and Senators. As to what McCain has planned I can only guess.
Romney and Huckabee both have obvious benefits and drawbacks. Romney can help make the northeast and the west competitive in ways they haven't been in years. Huckabee shores up the religious conservative credentials that McCain is lacking which will help in Florida and pretty much lock the south. On the down side they've both been fighting McCain for the last 3 months and not pulling punches so they'd have to sway the public on their change of heart, but I think they're both charismatic enough to pull it off. Guilianni falls into the same category, helping in much the same way as Romney but without exciting the conservative base at all so he's probably out of the running.
Lieberman would certainly be an interesting (if highly unlikely) choice. The Democrats would be hard pressed to beat them on a message of post partisanship and change. It's hard to argue that you're less partisan than an ostensibly cross-party ticket. (I should admit now that I really don't like Lieberman. 8 years ago I did, but I lost respect for him when he abandoned the Democratic party after he lost his last primary in Connecticut.) A McCain / Lieberman ticket could plausibly sweep the entire country, it probably wouldn't if only because Massachusetts is a bit contrarian but it's conceivable which is more than anyone has been able to say in many years.
Colin Powell would be another interesting choice, he's still widely respected even after the incidents while he was Secretary of State. He's still an unlikely choice though, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. He's a socially moderate, ex military septuagenarian and the ticket already has one of those. He might be moderate enough to carry the center but Lieberman is better for that route.
Pawlenty and Ridge I admittedly know much less about. I vaguely remember Ridge from the 2000 campaign but that's about it so I had to pull a little bit about them from wikipedia. Ridge is decidedly less likely than Pawlenty in my opinion. His time as Secretary of Homeland Security might hurt his otherwise moderate and northeastern credentials. Pawlenty seems to be in many ways a foil to McCain. He's a young, charismatic, moderate conservative from a moderately democratic state that could swing with him.
Ultimately its hard to guess who he'll pick. If he decides he wants a conservative Republican ticket it'll probably be Romney with Huckabee being the second best choice. If he wants a moderate Republican ticket expect Pawlenty with a slim chance of Guiliani. If he takes the leap of faith for a real campaign of change and moderation it'll have to be Lieberman or Powell if Lieberman declines.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Words I won't use.
Okay well its now Tuesday. I could go peruse the polls for all 8561 states that have primaries today, but I'd rather just ramble about them tomorrow after the results come in. So today I'm going to list off some things I won't do here.
I will not use blogosphere, blogoverse, or pretty much anything blogo.
I will not make demeaning comments about individual people... unless they do something particularly stupid.
I will not use 1337.
I will not rant about my personal life.
I will not rant in a strictly partisan way, if only because I can't seem to figure out which side I'm supposed to be on.
I will not deliberately lie about my views, my reasoning, or my sources.
I will not claim to be perfect. Sometimes my facts will be wrong, and if they are I will be more than happy to correct my errors.
Alright that's the list of annoying things that I'll try not to do in this blog. Now I guess I should list what I will try to do here.
I will post regularly, probably not every day, but at least two or three times a week as long as interesting things are happening.
I will occasionally post things that aren't strictly political stories and opinions. Social issues, current events, and possibly the occasional bit about video games.
I will post my opinions.
I will post my sources when I use something other than everyday news articles.
I will not use blogosphere, blogoverse, or pretty much anything blogo.
I will not make demeaning comments about individual people... unless they do something particularly stupid.
I will not use 1337.
I will not rant about my personal life.
I will not rant in a strictly partisan way, if only because I can't seem to figure out which side I'm supposed to be on.
I will not deliberately lie about my views, my reasoning, or my sources.
I will not claim to be perfect. Sometimes my facts will be wrong, and if they are I will be more than happy to correct my errors.
Alright that's the list of annoying things that I'll try not to do in this blog. Now I guess I should list what I will try to do here.
I will post regularly, probably not every day, but at least two or three times a week as long as interesting things are happening.
I will occasionally post things that aren't strictly political stories and opinions. Social issues, current events, and possibly the occasional bit about video games.
I will post my opinions.
I will post my sources when I use something other than everyday news articles.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Why Democrats lose in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Tuesday [I refuse to call it super])
Alright it's time for my official inaugural post on The Cynical Hammer. The "hey, I'm here" and copied from facebook notes posts don't count to me.
Well, seeing as there are roughly 83 primaries tomorrow (I haven't bothered to count so that may be the tiniest overstatement) I figure that should probably be the basis of this rant. That said, let's talk about Massachusetts.
Its my home state so I feel somewhat safe in talking about it and acting like I know a thing or two about the political system. My father was involved in the political realm sometimes and I met a fair number of politicians while I was growing up. My first job was delivering the Sunday paper to Eddie O'Brien (nepotism at its finest). He was the father of Shannon O'Brien the former Massachusetts State Treasurer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. She lost that election to none other than Mitt Romney.
Now I like Shannon, and the whole O'Brien family for that matter, they were always nice to me when I was growing up. But I remember watching the 2002 primary and wondering how the Democratic candidates could be so stupid. The Democratic primary between Shannon and her opponent (who I can't remember and don't care enough to look up) was fairly close and it was brutal. It was like watching a no-holds-barred grudge match. The campaign got dirty and fast.
But the tactics work. They galvanize their supporters so that they couldn't dream of supporting a different candidate. Unfortunately if their candidate loses, they often can't support a candidate who has said so many horrible things about the candidate they loved. This drives a lot of voters to vote for the other party (if its a moderate candidate and Mitt Romney was) or to not vote. That's how Mitt Romney won the governorship in the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts and its how the Republicans can win in a country that has an almost visceral reaction to George W. Bush recently.
Clinton and Obama need to get their acts together. By the end of tomorrow I expect the Republicans will be more or less unified behind one candidate (probably McCain, but Romney could still pull an upset if the stars line up just right) and the Democrats will still be ripping each other apart. That means the Republican front runner can start framing himself as a moderate again, appealing to the independents and moderate Democrats, while the Democrats are still fighting over their liberal base. If the Democrats can't cut the infighting before the convention the Republicans are going to have an almost guaranteed win in November.
Well, seeing as there are roughly 83 primaries tomorrow (I haven't bothered to count so that may be the tiniest overstatement) I figure that should probably be the basis of this rant. That said, let's talk about Massachusetts.
Its my home state so I feel somewhat safe in talking about it and acting like I know a thing or two about the political system. My father was involved in the political realm sometimes and I met a fair number of politicians while I was growing up. My first job was delivering the Sunday paper to Eddie O'Brien (nepotism at its finest). He was the father of Shannon O'Brien the former Massachusetts State Treasurer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. She lost that election to none other than Mitt Romney.
Now I like Shannon, and the whole O'Brien family for that matter, they were always nice to me when I was growing up. But I remember watching the 2002 primary and wondering how the Democratic candidates could be so stupid. The Democratic primary between Shannon and her opponent (who I can't remember and don't care enough to look up) was fairly close and it was brutal. It was like watching a no-holds-barred grudge match. The campaign got dirty and fast.
But the tactics work. They galvanize their supporters so that they couldn't dream of supporting a different candidate. Unfortunately if their candidate loses, they often can't support a candidate who has said so many horrible things about the candidate they loved. This drives a lot of voters to vote for the other party (if its a moderate candidate and Mitt Romney was) or to not vote. That's how Mitt Romney won the governorship in the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts and its how the Republicans can win in a country that has an almost visceral reaction to George W. Bush recently.
Clinton and Obama need to get their acts together. By the end of tomorrow I expect the Republicans will be more or less unified behind one candidate (probably McCain, but Romney could still pull an upset if the stars line up just right) and the Democrats will still be ripping each other apart. That means the Republican front runner can start framing himself as a moderate again, appealing to the independents and moderate Democrats, while the Democrats are still fighting over their liberal base. If the Democrats can't cut the infighting before the convention the Republicans are going to have an almost guaranteed win in November.
Huckabee
Dear God, please don't let Huckabee become president. (For the record that is a prayer not a case of taking His name in vain.)
This man scares me. I don't like Bush but Bush never scared me. Huckabee scares me. I'm not going to lie and say "if he gets elected I'll leave the country" because I wouldn't. I'd be a bit paranoid for 4 or 8 years, but I wouldn't leave the country, he may be crazy but there's only so much he can do without congress behind him, and congress is too slow to let him cause too much damage.
He's pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, generally pro-death all around. Except for abortion of course. Killing is only okay after they're capable of conscious thought. Also no stem-cell research, because the elderly aren't really doing anything for us anyway.
He's also opposed to killing gay people just for being gay. So I guess that's good. Now, none of the candidates (Republican or Democrat [except for Kucinich but he's a loon]) support gay marriage, so that's kind of a wash, but he also opposes civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and thinks gay marriage, if not directly responsible for, is directly correlated with the downfall of civilizations.
He does have an environmental streak, wanting to leave the Earth cleaner than we found it, but not much of a record on it one way or the other. On other science fronts, he's been known to think AIDS patients should be quarantined and recently claimed ignorance of the issue when he made that statement without actually apologizing or contradicting it. He also doesn't believe in evolution which probably isn't terribly important for a president unless he starts meddling in education policy.
Now for the part that really scares me. Tax policy. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax and put in a Fair Tax (aka. consumption tax, national sales tax, really F'ing bad idea...) I tried to argue in favor of it once for a political science class. The general consensus is that, while it's a great way to start a tax system, replacing the current system would cause widespread recession and hurt the lower class the most.
Anyway I'd say he has maybe a 10% chance of winning the nomination but even that's going to need a strong showing in Florida.
This man scares me. I don't like Bush but Bush never scared me. Huckabee scares me. I'm not going to lie and say "if he gets elected I'll leave the country" because I wouldn't. I'd be a bit paranoid for 4 or 8 years, but I wouldn't leave the country, he may be crazy but there's only so much he can do without congress behind him, and congress is too slow to let him cause too much damage.
He's pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, generally pro-death all around. Except for abortion of course. Killing is only okay after they're capable of conscious thought. Also no stem-cell research, because the elderly aren't really doing anything for us anyway.
He's also opposed to killing gay people just for being gay. So I guess that's good. Now, none of the candidates (Republican or Democrat [except for Kucinich but he's a loon]) support gay marriage, so that's kind of a wash, but he also opposes civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and thinks gay marriage, if not directly responsible for, is directly correlated with the downfall of civilizations.
He does have an environmental streak, wanting to leave the Earth cleaner than we found it, but not much of a record on it one way or the other. On other science fronts, he's been known to think AIDS patients should be quarantined and recently claimed ignorance of the issue when he made that statement without actually apologizing or contradicting it. He also doesn't believe in evolution which probably isn't terribly important for a president unless he starts meddling in education policy.
Now for the part that really scares me. Tax policy. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax and put in a Fair Tax (aka. consumption tax, national sales tax, really F'ing bad idea...) I tried to argue in favor of it once for a political science class. The general consensus is that, while it's a great way to start a tax system, replacing the current system would cause widespread recession and hurt the lower class the most.
Anyway I'd say he has maybe a 10% chance of winning the nomination but even that's going to need a strong showing in Florida.
Romney
Oh Romney... ye of many faces. I like Romney, but he's held more positions than the Kama Sutra. He can't even seem to decide where he lives. It's Massachusetts... or is it Michigan... or Utah? I've lost track.
To be fair, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts is a terrible state to try to win an election in. As a state we're incredibly stubborn and disagreeable. If the entire country decides one way, you can almost guarantee that Massachusetts will go the other way. The other side of this fierce independence is that elected officials have to be nimble about their positions or they'll lose their seat as fast as they got it. They don't have to directly contradict their views, they just have to bend them and spin it to look like they do.
Overall Romney is fairly moderate. Pro-life, anti gay marriage, but not rabidly so. He's trying to please the entire Republican base which will ultimately either be why he wins or why he loses.
His biggest flaw (aside from the flip flopping) is that he's a Mormon. Granted most of the country doesn't really care about that, but it's still hovering around just waiting to rear it's ugly head again. Personally I think it's a stupid and bigoted reason to oppose a candidate. But then again, I'm not a conservative Christian fundamentalist.
Oops did I just call Christian fundies stupid bigots? My bad...
I honestly don't care about his faith, it's his business not the country's. Besides, even if he were a polygamist, he'd probably have fewer wives than Guiliani.
All in all I'd give him about a 35% chance of taking the nomination. BUT if he can take Florida that's going to bounce up quite a bit and seriously hurt McCain's chances.
To be fair, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts is a terrible state to try to win an election in. As a state we're incredibly stubborn and disagreeable. If the entire country decides one way, you can almost guarantee that Massachusetts will go the other way. The other side of this fierce independence is that elected officials have to be nimble about their positions or they'll lose their seat as fast as they got it. They don't have to directly contradict their views, they just have to bend them and spin it to look like they do.
Overall Romney is fairly moderate. Pro-life, anti gay marriage, but not rabidly so. He's trying to please the entire Republican base which will ultimately either be why he wins or why he loses.
His biggest flaw (aside from the flip flopping) is that he's a Mormon. Granted most of the country doesn't really care about that, but it's still hovering around just waiting to rear it's ugly head again. Personally I think it's a stupid and bigoted reason to oppose a candidate. But then again, I'm not a conservative Christian fundamentalist.
Oops did I just call Christian fundies stupid bigots? My bad...
I honestly don't care about his faith, it's his business not the country's. Besides, even if he were a polygamist, he'd probably have fewer wives than Guiliani.
All in all I'd give him about a 35% chance of taking the nomination. BUT if he can take Florida that's going to bounce up quite a bit and seriously hurt McCain's chances.
McCain
Now for the Republicans. They're much more interesting to me this year. Not because I agree with their politics, but because their base is so divided right now that it's a genuine toss up for a change. For years the Republicans have been this weird conglomerate of war hawks, libertarians, evangelicals, and the wealthy. All of which have conflicting interests. Their only uniting factor was that they opposed the Democrats
McCain is the Republican candidate for the hawks. Veteran, POW, great American war hero. He's everything the pro-war, pro-military types love to see in a candidate. He's also going to be 72 before the general election in November and I'm fairly certain he's already on the short bus to senility.
He somehow manages to have cross-party appeal while holding no actual moderate opinions. I have to admit I respect the man and when he ran 8 years ago I was a big fan. The last 8 years have turned him from a respectable man that tells the truth even when people don't want to hear it into a borderline senile coot that wants us to believe Baghdad is safe just because no one shot him while he was surrounded by an squad of heavily armed soldiers.
All in all, he's not a bad guy and I'd say he's got about a 50% chance of winning the nomination and the Republicans could do worse in the current field... but I still think he's a crazy old man.
McCain is the Republican candidate for the hawks. Veteran, POW, great American war hero. He's everything the pro-war, pro-military types love to see in a candidate. He's also going to be 72 before the general election in November and I'm fairly certain he's already on the short bus to senility.
He somehow manages to have cross-party appeal while holding no actual moderate opinions. I have to admit I respect the man and when he ran 8 years ago I was a big fan. The last 8 years have turned him from a respectable man that tells the truth even when people don't want to hear it into a borderline senile coot that wants us to believe Baghdad is safe just because no one shot him while he was surrounded by an squad of heavily armed soldiers.
All in all, he's not a bad guy and I'd say he's got about a 50% chance of winning the nomination and the Republicans could do worse in the current field... but I still think he's a crazy old man.
Edwards
Of the three Democratic candidates I like Edwards the most, which really isn't saying a whole lot. Like might even be too strong of a word. It's really more of a vague preference. Who knows, maybe it's my inner sexist and racist that feels more comfortable voting for a white guy. Regardless he has very little chance of winning but stranger things have happened. Edwards in the news:
His wife has cancer.
...
...
...
...
Yeah that's about it. At this point he's almost been relegated to "also ran" status. If he sticks it out (and starts sucking up to whoever ends up being the front runner after SUPER DUPER MEGA AWESOME HUUUUUUUUUGE ÜBER TUESDAY) he might have a shot at the VP spot. He's young enough that 8 years from now (pretty much the only time a VP runs) he'd be a viable candidate touting his experience (assuming those 8 years go well).
Edwards is pretty standard fare for a candidate. Middle aged white guy with good hair and a law degree. He's been around too long to play Obama's change card but not political enough to play the experience card that they decided to let Clinton play (not really sure why but they have). This is both his strength and his weakness. He has the charisma and the charm to be competitive, but he can't compare to the perception that electing a black candidate or a female candidate makes us better as a country. The Democrats seem to have decided that it's more important to look like they don't care about race or gender than to elect the better candidate. Either that or he's just as much a mediocre candidate as the rest of them.
If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
His wife has cancer.
...
...
...
...
Yeah that's about it. At this point he's almost been relegated to "also ran" status. If he sticks it out (and starts sucking up to whoever ends up being the front runner after SUPER DUPER MEGA AWESOME HUUUUUUUUUGE ÜBER TUESDAY) he might have a shot at the VP spot. He's young enough that 8 years from now (pretty much the only time a VP runs) he'd be a viable candidate touting his experience (assuming those 8 years go well).
Edwards is pretty standard fare for a candidate. Middle aged white guy with good hair and a law degree. He's been around too long to play Obama's change card but not political enough to play the experience card that they decided to let Clinton play (not really sure why but they have). This is both his strength and his weakness. He has the charisma and the charm to be competitive, but he can't compare to the perception that electing a black candidate or a female candidate makes us better as a country. The Democrats seem to have decided that it's more important to look like they don't care about race or gender than to elect the better candidate. Either that or he's just as much a mediocre candidate as the rest of them.
If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
Clinton
I have a love/hate relationship with Clinton. She's pretty much a calculating, manipulative bit... er... politician. And I think that those are her good qualities. Now let's see what the news can tell me about her:
She's a woman.
She's married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is a womanizing liar.
Bill Clinton used to be president.
Bill Clinton was our best/worst president in recent history.
See, now here we have a problem. Aside from the fact that she's a woman, most of the news is about Bill. Now don't misunderstand, I'm a big fan of Bill. Mostly because he was a good politician and a good president, horrible human being, but a good president. I'm one of those people that just doesn't really care what politicians do in their free time (within reason of course). If they want to go around diddling their interns while their wife is gone, that's fine with me. I may not let my hypothetical children apply to be their interns, but I'll still vote for them as long as their diddling doesn't interfere with their job. But regardless of any of that, he's not the one running. I know he's making a lot of speeches for her (much like Mrs. Edwards is making speeches for John) so by all means tell us what he's saying but don't act like it's his campaign. This isn't some sneaky way for him to get back in power, I mean come on, they don't even get along that well (probably has something to do with the intern diddling).
Now to address her supporters. If you can't admit that she's an opportunistic and power hungry politician you're going to be in for a rude awakening. She's cutthroat and ultimately she's out to win. Personally I think those are good qualities for a president to have. She'll do whatever it takes to get her way which is good, just so long as you agree with her. But then if you don't agree with her policies why are you voting for her?
Now for race and/or gender. She's a woman. Yep, I said it. She's also intelligent and well educated. Her gender is irrelevant. She's no more emotional or indecisive than any man I've ever met. Less than most. But again... if her gender is the only reason you're voting for her then you're an idiot. And a sexist.
If you think she's the best candidate then vote for her, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
She's a woman.
She's married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is a womanizing liar.
Bill Clinton used to be president.
Bill Clinton was our best/worst president in recent history.
See, now here we have a problem. Aside from the fact that she's a woman, most of the news is about Bill. Now don't misunderstand, I'm a big fan of Bill. Mostly because he was a good politician and a good president, horrible human being, but a good president. I'm one of those people that just doesn't really care what politicians do in their free time (within reason of course). If they want to go around diddling their interns while their wife is gone, that's fine with me. I may not let my hypothetical children apply to be their interns, but I'll still vote for them as long as their diddling doesn't interfere with their job. But regardless of any of that, he's not the one running. I know he's making a lot of speeches for her (much like Mrs. Edwards is making speeches for John) so by all means tell us what he's saying but don't act like it's his campaign. This isn't some sneaky way for him to get back in power, I mean come on, they don't even get along that well (probably has something to do with the intern diddling).
Now to address her supporters. If you can't admit that she's an opportunistic and power hungry politician you're going to be in for a rude awakening. She's cutthroat and ultimately she's out to win. Personally I think those are good qualities for a president to have. She'll do whatever it takes to get her way which is good, just so long as you agree with her. But then if you don't agree with her policies why are you voting for her?
Now for race and/or gender. She's a woman. Yep, I said it. She's also intelligent and well educated. Her gender is irrelevant. She's no more emotional or indecisive than any man I've ever met. Less than most. But again... if her gender is the only reason you're voting for her then you're an idiot. And a sexist.
If you think she's the best candidate then vote for her, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
Obama
I'm in a ranting at work mood again so I think I'll do little bits on the candidates. I'll start with the Democrats for a couple reasons:
a) I am a registered Democrat so I should care about them more (I don't but I should).
b) There's fewer of them.
c) Their followers and detractors seem more obsessed and idiotic than most of the republicans.
I'll start this off by confessing, I don't like Obama. I don't have a particular reason for it, I just find him to be very nondescript. By a quick perusal of the internet news I can tell you a few things about him.
He's black (sort of).
He goes to a mainly black megachurch that may or may not hate white people.
He's not a Muslim (probably).
He cares about issues more than infighting (but I couldn't find any because of all the infighting).
He pretty much always votes with the Democrats (when he votes).
Yeah that's about it. None of this is a particular reason to vote for him or against him. He's a charismatic public speaker, but that's about it. He's a generic Democrat with a good speaking voice. The whole bit about changing politics and being post-partisan would be a lot more believable if he'd actually done any of it while he was in the senate. None of this is particularly bad, it just means he's another typical Democrat lacking any distinguishing features.
Now to address his critics. First of all religion. There's more to a church than the pastor's political views so I refuse to hold that against him. Maybe he agrees with everything that's said but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Churches are a strange amalgamation of social, political, and theological organizations and it's a crass oversimplification to claim that a regular attendee has to agree with everything that's said there. And really, are we actually discussing that he might secretly be an Islamic extremist in disguise? I don't even know what else to say about that, it's almost the most absurd thing I have to talk about here. Almost. That prize goes to the people who think he's both a secret Islamic extremist AND a secret militant black Christian separatist. I'm pretty sure that's an either/or situation. Either that or he's got some heretofore unknown mastery of cognitive dissonance.
Now for race and/or gender. I won't say that race and gender aren't issues in this country (partly for fear that my ex will hunt me down and beat me over the head with books about race relations again). I'm one of those people (sometimes accused of being racist) that just doesn't care about race. I think we've gotten to a point where we can focus on poverty regardless of race and it'll sort itself out. But that's a rant for another day. Obama is black and the questions of "is he black enough?" or "will he get the black vote?" need to stop. If you're voting for him (or not voting for him) because he's black then you're an idiot. And a racist.
If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
a) I am a registered Democrat so I should care about them more (I don't but I should).
b) There's fewer of them.
c) Their followers and detractors seem more obsessed and idiotic than most of the republicans.
I'll start this off by confessing, I don't like Obama. I don't have a particular reason for it, I just find him to be very nondescript. By a quick perusal of the internet news I can tell you a few things about him.
He's black (sort of).
He goes to a mainly black megachurch that may or may not hate white people.
He's not a Muslim (probably).
He cares about issues more than infighting (but I couldn't find any because of all the infighting).
He pretty much always votes with the Democrats (when he votes).
Yeah that's about it. None of this is a particular reason to vote for him or against him. He's a charismatic public speaker, but that's about it. He's a generic Democrat with a good speaking voice. The whole bit about changing politics and being post-partisan would be a lot more believable if he'd actually done any of it while he was in the senate. None of this is particularly bad, it just means he's another typical Democrat lacking any distinguishing features.
Now to address his critics. First of all religion. There's more to a church than the pastor's political views so I refuse to hold that against him. Maybe he agrees with everything that's said but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Churches are a strange amalgamation of social, political, and theological organizations and it's a crass oversimplification to claim that a regular attendee has to agree with everything that's said there. And really, are we actually discussing that he might secretly be an Islamic extremist in disguise? I don't even know what else to say about that, it's almost the most absurd thing I have to talk about here. Almost. That prize goes to the people who think he's both a secret Islamic extremist AND a secret militant black Christian separatist. I'm pretty sure that's an either/or situation. Either that or he's got some heretofore unknown mastery of cognitive dissonance.
Now for race and/or gender. I won't say that race and gender aren't issues in this country (partly for fear that my ex will hunt me down and beat me over the head with books about race relations again). I'm one of those people (sometimes accused of being racist) that just doesn't care about race. I think we've gotten to a point where we can focus on poverty regardless of race and it'll sort itself out. But that's a rant for another day. Obama is black and the questions of "is he black enough?" or "will he get the black vote?" need to stop. If you're voting for him (or not voting for him) because he's black then you're an idiot. And a racist.
If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.
The Iowa Fracas
This was going to be one of my points earlier but I forgot until after I was done and I've got more to say on this than on the other bits. Also I have more time to kill while looking busy and demographics all look important on my screen even when they aren't.
Presidential Primary Season (I put it in capitals to make it look important), where we choose (for the sake of this discussion) the two candidates who will be competing for the highest office in the land. And the lead off state, the one that sets the stage for the rest of the primaries, the one that can make or break candidates is... Iowa? And the method they use for this litmus test is... a caucus?
Now I have nothing against Iowa. It's a fine state. I drove through it once. The most memorable thing there was the Mississippi River, and we may have had lunch there, but to this day I'm not sure if we were in Iowa or Indiana at that point. Regardless, my point is that I have nothing against Iowa or Iowans, just a few problems with them always being the first presidential primary state.
First the problem with Iowa. For those of you who don't know your geography, Iowa is in that middle part of the country you probably never had any reason to go to. With a population of almost 3,000,000 people it makes up almost a whole percentage point of the United States. Their caucuses due partly to their nature, which I'll get to in a minute, attract astonishingly low turnout. (This year they set records with a little over 15% of eligible voters.)
Now even this small sample could be meaningful if it were demographically representative. Well, Iowa is 92% white (75% nationally) and if other statistics were easily accessible at work I'd have more. Suffice it to say that it isn't a diverse state.
On top of all that, they use a caucus. I've never been to an Iowa presidential caucus, I hear they're quite the experience but we've all been involved in a caucus of one sort or another at some point in our lives. It's just a glorified way of saying 'everyone go stand under the sign of your favorite candidate'. Everyone has to show up at one time, they have to stay until voting is finished (several hours sometimes), and they can try to convince each other to change their votes in the middle of it. This means that it's pretty much only attended by people with nothing better to do, people that don't have kids or jobs that keep them busy from 7 until 9 or 10 at night.
Then when all of the shenanigans are over candidates are declared winners and losers. A victory in Iowa makes a good start to the campaign and a loss can (and usually does) end a few campaigns every year. Campaigns that are ended based mostly on the opinions of the .15% of Americans who happen to live in Iowa and have nothing better to do on that night. That is why I hate the Iowa Caucus.
Presidential Primary Season (I put it in capitals to make it look important), where we choose (for the sake of this discussion) the two candidates who will be competing for the highest office in the land. And the lead off state, the one that sets the stage for the rest of the primaries, the one that can make or break candidates is... Iowa? And the method they use for this litmus test is... a caucus?
Now I have nothing against Iowa. It's a fine state. I drove through it once. The most memorable thing there was the Mississippi River, and we may have had lunch there, but to this day I'm not sure if we were in Iowa or Indiana at that point. Regardless, my point is that I have nothing against Iowa or Iowans, just a few problems with them always being the first presidential primary state.
First the problem with Iowa. For those of you who don't know your geography, Iowa is in that middle part of the country you probably never had any reason to go to. With a population of almost 3,000,000 people it makes up almost a whole percentage point of the United States. Their caucuses due partly to their nature, which I'll get to in a minute, attract astonishingly low turnout. (This year they set records with a little over 15% of eligible voters.)
Now even this small sample could be meaningful if it were demographically representative. Well, Iowa is 92% white (75% nationally) and if other statistics were easily accessible at work I'd have more. Suffice it to say that it isn't a diverse state.
On top of all that, they use a caucus. I've never been to an Iowa presidential caucus, I hear they're quite the experience but we've all been involved in a caucus of one sort or another at some point in our lives. It's just a glorified way of saying 'everyone go stand under the sign of your favorite candidate'. Everyone has to show up at one time, they have to stay until voting is finished (several hours sometimes), and they can try to convince each other to change their votes in the middle of it. This means that it's pretty much only attended by people with nothing better to do, people that don't have kids or jobs that keep them busy from 7 until 9 or 10 at night.
Then when all of the shenanigans are over candidates are declared winners and losers. A victory in Iowa makes a good start to the campaign and a loss can (and usually does) end a few campaigns every year. Campaigns that are ended based mostly on the opinions of the .15% of Americans who happen to live in Iowa and have nothing better to do on that night. That is why I hate the Iowa Caucus.
Why I Hate Election Season...
I don't generally write anything but I feel a good rant coming on and it's far more interesting than what I'm getting paid to work on so here it goes:
1) The Fanatics: I get it. You love your candidate. That doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Your candidate is not perfect. The odds are that your candidate is a rich white man or a protestant minister. Your candidate is not an infallible panacea for the ills of government. Your candidate is not a 'Washington Outsider' who will come in and wash away the sins of the status quo. Your candidate is not 'the common man'.
2) The Common Man: You're running for President of the richest and most powerful nation in the world for God's sake. You are not just 'one of the guys' nor should you be. I don't want you to be the guy who was my best friend in high school who wanted to name his kids after action verbs; lord only knows what he'd do with nuclear launch codes.
3) The Conspiracy Theorists: The government is not controlled by some secret shadowy organization. There really are two parties. While their values and positions may be poorly defined and often changed, they are not secretly two parts of one giant super party. By the same token, Al-Qaeda has not hand picked one of the candidates in an attempt to destroy America through free elections. They hate us; they're going to hate us whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat.
4) The Doomsday Prophets: The world is not going to end if one of the candidates gets elected. They may make lots of decisions you disagree with, but they probably aren't racist mass murdering sociopaths, those very rarely make it through the primary debates.
5) The Focus on the Family, etc.: To quote the overly cited Treaty of Tripoli (article 11) "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". I don't care if the candidates haven't been to church in 30 years, that's their own business and completely irrelevant to their ability to lead a nation of 300,000,000 people. Morality is not your exclusive bailiwick and does not need your God to exist.
6) The Pat Robertson: You're probably thinking I covered Pat in numbers 1, 3, 4, or 5; but I decided he annoys me enough that he deserved his own spot. According to Pat if the wrong people get elected God will smite us (and he'll blame it on the gays). Of course, if the wrong people get elected and we aren't smote it's because the righteous prayed and God was merciful.
7) The Atheists: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist every time someone mentions God. They have just as much a right to their beliefs (and to talk about them) as you have to yours.
8) The Gay Agenda: For the last time, there is no such thing as the Gay Agenda. Anyone who thinks that there is has clearly never worked with a group of gay people for any length of time. We're lucky if we can agree on a meal in less than 3 hours. The gay agenda could take centuries at this rate. We haven't even started the gay mission statement or gay vision statement yet.
9) The Gay People: For a group of people between 1% (Conservative bad science estimate) and 10% (Liberal bad science estimate) of the total population we really need to get our act together. That's between 3 and 30 million people. There are only around 20 million people over the age of 60 and they're much better organized. How long are we going to whine for equal rights while we can be out lobbied by people with Alzheimer’s? We need to get our well dressed and flannel wearing ducks in a row so at least we can pretend like we actually care enough to do something about gay rights.
10) The Electoral College: I could (and have been known to) go on for hours about the Electoral College. It has it's quirks but I actually like the system. This is more about the idiots who think they can come up with a better system off the top of their heads. No, if you change it from statewide to congressional districts it doesn't make everyone's vote worth more (first of all, they can't ALL be worth more without breaking some ceteris paribus conditions) it would just encourage more gerrymandering and ultimately the same results in smaller scales instead of statewide campaigns. No, if you make your delegates go to whoever wins the national popular vote it doesn't make things better; it just disenfranchises your entire state (unless everyone does it). No a national popular vote is not better, that would only focus all of the campaigning on population centers, they could campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia and ignore the rest of the country.
This wasn't going to be a full 10 point list when I started... but it seems like a good place to stop and get back to doing what they pay me for.
1) The Fanatics: I get it. You love your candidate. That doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Your candidate is not perfect. The odds are that your candidate is a rich white man or a protestant minister. Your candidate is not an infallible panacea for the ills of government. Your candidate is not a 'Washington Outsider' who will come in and wash away the sins of the status quo. Your candidate is not 'the common man'.
2) The Common Man: You're running for President of the richest and most powerful nation in the world for God's sake. You are not just 'one of the guys' nor should you be. I don't want you to be the guy who was my best friend in high school who wanted to name his kids after action verbs; lord only knows what he'd do with nuclear launch codes.
3) The Conspiracy Theorists: The government is not controlled by some secret shadowy organization. There really are two parties. While their values and positions may be poorly defined and often changed, they are not secretly two parts of one giant super party. By the same token, Al-Qaeda has not hand picked one of the candidates in an attempt to destroy America through free elections. They hate us; they're going to hate us whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat.
4) The Doomsday Prophets: The world is not going to end if one of the candidates gets elected. They may make lots of decisions you disagree with, but they probably aren't racist mass murdering sociopaths, those very rarely make it through the primary debates.
5) The Focus on the Family, etc.: To quote the overly cited Treaty of Tripoli (article 11) "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". I don't care if the candidates haven't been to church in 30 years, that's their own business and completely irrelevant to their ability to lead a nation of 300,000,000 people. Morality is not your exclusive bailiwick and does not need your God to exist.
6) The Pat Robertson: You're probably thinking I covered Pat in numbers 1, 3, 4, or 5; but I decided he annoys me enough that he deserved his own spot. According to Pat if the wrong people get elected God will smite us (and he'll blame it on the gays). Of course, if the wrong people get elected and we aren't smote it's because the righteous prayed and God was merciful.
7) The Atheists: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist every time someone mentions God. They have just as much a right to their beliefs (and to talk about them) as you have to yours.
8) The Gay Agenda: For the last time, there is no such thing as the Gay Agenda. Anyone who thinks that there is has clearly never worked with a group of gay people for any length of time. We're lucky if we can agree on a meal in less than 3 hours. The gay agenda could take centuries at this rate. We haven't even started the gay mission statement or gay vision statement yet.
9) The Gay People: For a group of people between 1% (Conservative bad science estimate) and 10% (Liberal bad science estimate) of the total population we really need to get our act together. That's between 3 and 30 million people. There are only around 20 million people over the age of 60 and they're much better organized. How long are we going to whine for equal rights while we can be out lobbied by people with Alzheimer’s? We need to get our well dressed and flannel wearing ducks in a row so at least we can pretend like we actually care enough to do something about gay rights.
10) The Electoral College: I could (and have been known to) go on for hours about the Electoral College. It has it's quirks but I actually like the system. This is more about the idiots who think they can come up with a better system off the top of their heads. No, if you change it from statewide to congressional districts it doesn't make everyone's vote worth more (first of all, they can't ALL be worth more without breaking some ceteris paribus conditions) it would just encourage more gerrymandering and ultimately the same results in smaller scales instead of statewide campaigns. No, if you make your delegates go to whoever wins the national popular vote it doesn't make things better; it just disenfranchises your entire state (unless everyone does it). No a national popular vote is not better, that would only focus all of the campaigning on population centers, they could campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia and ignore the rest of the country.
This wasn't going to be a full 10 point list when I started... but it seems like a good place to stop and get back to doing what they pay me for.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
It does exist
Alright I said I was going to make it and now I did. Sometime soon I'll start moving my previous rants over here for posterity's sake and then I'll start posting any new rants I have here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)