In so many ways, we have witnessed a historic election. While the final numbers are still coming in, it is clear that, as Senator McCain said, “the American people have spoken, and spoken clearly.” He didn’t squeak by, or have the deciding electoral votes handed to him by a court. Barack Obama won the election decisively — current electoral numbers are 338 vs. 156. It is encouraging that in his wonderful speech, he made a point of emphasizing that it is his ultimate desire to be the president of every single American, and that he wants to reach out to those whose support he has yet to earn. I think he’s actually got the moves, character, and intelligence to back up his promises of bringing people together. President Obama will be as much of a uniter as Bush was a divider.

I have to hand it to John McCain…that was an extremely gracious and classy concession speech. His supporters didn’t exactly match his grace, but Senator McCain himself showed why he’s been so successful in the past — he really is an honorable man, someone who has sacrificed more for his country than many of us can imagine, and someone who ultimately can put what’s best for the country ahead of his own ambition. He’s just not the man for the job, but he threw his support behind our new president with wholehearted sincerity and patriotism. That’s what America needs, and I hope McCain is properly recognized for what will likely be his last great public act of selflessness for our country.

I hope people realize that despite the nasty mud slinging from the GOP at times, which I do not blame McCain for personally, we just witnessed an election between two good men, politics notwithstanding. I have no idea when that last happened. Now, America has chosen a leader who I believe will represent a dramatic shift in how our government works and in how Americans interact with their government. These aren’t typical times, and this is not a typical politician. He doesn’t want to exclude people, no matter what their political stance — a stark contrast to the Bush doctrine which sees anyone who doesn’t agree with them as an enemy to be squashed.

Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that President Obama brings all of this to the table and more. I hope that even the typically pessimistic can find some room for optimism with Obama’s “we/us/our” inclusiveness, because we really do need a president for everyone.

As I write this in the first minutes of Tuesday, November 4, 2008, I realize that I am — for the first time in my memory — really looking forward to this election day. There’s a buzz, an energy, an enthusiasm surrounding this presidential contest that I have never witnessed, and in the midst of all of our country’s troubles it is uplifting to see so many regular people recognize the importance of their duty to vote. I have mostly phased out politics on this blog, but I would be remiss to let this date pass unobserved, even on my own tiny little corner of the Internet.

What’s different about this election? Well, aside from the country being in dire financial straits, I think the candidates themselves represent a fairly distinct change from what we’ve seen over the last couple decades. Since I’ve been following politics, this is the first time we’ve had two candidates that I can truly — if I reach deep down — respect, at least on some level.

I strongly disagree with most of the policies and the dirty campaign McCain has run, but I’ve been watching the guy long enough — 10 years or so, I think — that I know he’s not a bad man. I think he got sucked in by the Bush-era Republican political handlers, who are for the most part parasitical non-humans, but at his core he’s at least intelligent and for the most part honorable, or at least as honorable as you can expect many politicians to be. Those are two qualities that, at the presidential level, you’d have to go back to at least Reagan, if not further. Unfortunately, since he started running for president those two qualities have been diminished by the structure and tenor of his whole campaign. Picking a wacko like Sarah Palin doesn’t help. It’s also refreshing to see the Republican party pick a candidate who doesn’t completely pander (read: lie) to the far right about religion just to get their votes.

My respect for McCain doesn’t make me any less passionate about my support for Obama, however. Here’s the guy who’s mostly responsible for energizing this election. Extremely intelligent, fresh, straightforward, and not afraid to confront the numbers (I like specifics), something that McCain’s handlers rarely allow into speeches for some reason (his and Palin’s speeches are mostly interminable soundbites). More than any politician I’ve ever heard, I think he actually believes the stuff he says, and more importantly understands it. And whatever disagreements I have with some of his ideas, there’s no denying the fact that this guy is probably this generation’s Kennedy in terms of revitalizing a dormant political demographic. We need this political shot in the arm to give people who have been depressed about the idiocy of the past eight years a chance to regain interest and maybe — just maybe — some degree of faith in our government. Hey, it’s not completely impossible.
Read the rest of this entry »

Not that she ever liked him in the first place (and who does, really?), but Sen. Clinton let typical political diplo-speak fall by the wayside last night when she referred to the vice president as such, describing the administration’s attempts to keep Republican lawmakers’ support for the Iraq war.

I’m not exactly a big Hillary fan, but it’s nice to know that sometimes in Washington they see what the rest of us see.

Read: CNN Political Ticker

It’s been a long time since I harped on Fox News. Not for shortage of material, mind you, but just because it’s so depressing to see a news organization which is practically a state-run agency have such a large audience that actually believes the crap they’re being shoveled. This is just a fun little tidbit, a piece of anecdotal evidence, if you will, for why you still should not be watching Fox News.

I’m sure we’ve all heard at least part of the lovely scandal about Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), a staunch conservative who has voted time and again to ban homosexuals from doing anything except for breathing (which you get the impression he would also ban, if he could), who allegedly solicited sex acts from a man in an airport bathroom who turned out to be a cop. Fox News is known for way too frequently having “accidentally” flipped an “R” to a “D” during a scandal involving Republicans, or “mistakenly” calling Sen. Barack Obama “Osama” (even putting it in an on-screen graphic with his picture!), and a number of other thinly veiled “oopsies.” In their coverage of this recent scandal, it was noticed that a Fox News article mentioned Senator Craig’s party affiliation exactly zero times. They then proceeded to quote a bunch of Republicans denouncing him, the obvious subtext being they want their readers/viewers to not connect Craig with the Republican party and maybe even think he’s a Democrat. They also devoted less than half the air time to the scandal than MSNBC, and about six times less than CNN.

While we’re on the subject, I’d like to point out again the guys involved in this reprehensible behavior are always the ones condemning it the loudest. Larry Craig was one of the most outspoken anti-gay politicians…and goes and tries to get some in a men’s bathroom. Mark Foley (R-FL) was the House Rep who was a crusader against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children…and then was caught doing it himself. Ted Haggard was one of the biggest gay-bashers in the country…and then it turns out he’s been doing drugs and a guy from Denver for over three years. A number of “family values” Republicans were fingered in the D.C. Madame call-girl scandal. So remember the lesson here: If a politician’s lips are moving, he’s lying. And if he’s an ultra-conservative with a cause, he apparently is not only lying but means the exact opposite of what he says.

I just read an excellent analysis piece from TIME Magazine. Despite the huge scandal at the DOJ — in fact because of the very nature of the scandal — Bush will not ask Attorney General Gonzales to resign. Other than stubbornness and general stupidity, qualities which this president certainly has in abundance (and I don’t write that way about the office of the president lightly), until now I had not heard any reasonable explanations as to why Gonzales is still in charge of the Department of Justice. As TIME points out, Bush has not exactly had issues with axing high-profile appointees in the past, like Rumsfled late last year.

The conclusions the TIME article reaches fit perfectly, and they are just disgusting enough for you to know, in the context of this scandal-ridden administration, that they are accurate. To put it briefly, Gonzales is Bush’s last remaining shield from a series of long-overdue investigations and prosecutions — illegal wiretapping, unconstitutional abuse of power, illegal use of executive privilege, illegal subversion of Congressional investigation subpoenas, etc. The DOJ, the very branch of the government that’s supposed to be executing these investigations in support of the law and in check of the other branches of the government, is not doing so because Gonzales is Bush’s loyal buddy and has done all he can to dig in his heels and not approve such investigations and prosecutions. I have never, ever seen public servants — politicians or otherwise, and politicians are a pretty low form of public servant — with such blatant contempt for the rule of law. It is truly disgusting. For crying out loud, not only has Gonzales perjured himself at least once during his testimony, but he actually used the phrase “I don’t recall” something like 164 times during one day’s session alone, claiming not to remember even the broadest facts about the politically-motivated firings for which he is being investigated. I say, whether he’s guilty or not (and it’s all but clear at this point that he is sinfully guilty), that he should be fired for having such a crappy memory! How can you trust someone with that much power if they can’t remember a damn thing from just a few months ago?

Read the article at TIME.com.

Apparently a good fist to the face is the way they resolve disputes over agenda issues (are you kidding me? Agenda issues?) in the ‘bama state senate. A Republican state senator punched a Democratic senator (there’s Democrats in Alabama? Holy crap) and, like a true gentlemen, doesn’t feel it’s necessary to apologize “yet”. Nice.

It seems that conservative leaders have finally awoken to what I’ve been saying for years: that the Republican party is not Republican anymore. They’re big spenders, trade destroyers, coddlers of illegal immigrants, and have generally just been riding to power on voters’ visions of what Republicans used to be. Which makes the Republican party a bunch of big-scale liars, and makes the people that vote for them — at least the ones who think they’re still voting for the budget-minded, constitution-respecting party — gullible idiots. Yeah, that’s right…I’m not being nice, because few things piss me off more than when people blindly vote a party without paying attention to who they’re actually voting for. That goes for both sides of the fence.

If they were what they used to be, the Republican party might have my support, at least to a much greater degree than now. But since I started, oh, paying attention (straight-ticket voters: you should try it sometime) to what their overall platform has been in the last decade, there’s no chance in hell that most of them will get my vote. And they shouldn’t get yours either, is what many conservative leaders are saying, even if you’re conservative. Until they straighten up and start actually doing something that resembles what they say, and return to the more responsible party of the past, and start caring about the middle class, and stop raping our country’s coffers, they shouldn’t get anyone’s vote.

I don’t normally put much stock in political ads, but it looks like the Dems have finally taken a page from the GOP’s book and are using their own words against them. Watch this series of clips, and then think of it whenever this administration tells you anything. Unbelievable.

In attempt to minimize the “I wasn’t aware of this” responses to my current poll, I want to make sure all my readers have a chance to learn about this incredibly important — and scary — moment in our history. From Wikipedia, “The writ of habeus corpus…is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.” It represents the very cornerstone of our freedom. Without it, we are nothing more than a dictatorship, with leaders who can “lock [someone] up and throw away the key without giving them a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law.”

The new law allows the president or national security adviser to declare a person an enemy combatant, which permits them to be tried in a military court without the writ of habeus corpus. It also allows for “coercive interrogation techniques” and explicitly forbids torture; however, that point is completely moot because the law also says that the same person — the president — also gets to decide what is torture.

By signing this law, Bush has directly violated the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the very foundations of this country. Yet he has “suggested that votes against the law show that Democrats would not protect the country from another terrorist attack” (proving my point about fear mongering in my recent article). Yeah, right. Because you can’t protect us unless you break the law and destroy our democracy, right Mr. Bush? Guess what: by doing so, you’re helping the terrorists win. They hate our way or life and our freedom for all people, no matter what race, gender, or creed. By taking away our freedoms and the basic rights of our democracy, we are playing into the terrorists’ hands in their quest to destroy us. Great work, Mr. President.

Let’s not forget that this bill passed because of the support of most of the Republicans and some Democrat members of the house, so they should be held equally accountable when you go to the polls this year. Not one of these idiots who supported this bill should ever get your vote again. To see who voted which way on the bill, check out the voting record on the Bill of Rights Defense Committee’s web site.

I challenge you.

I challenge you to stop and think. To possibly change your perspective. To hear these words, but not let them roll past your ears. To read this not with the depressed apathy many of you feel when social issues arise, but with a conviction to take an interest and a responsibility in shaping modern events. I am writing to those who may have preconceptions, beliefs, or traditions of thinking that tend to shape your decisions more often than a careful consideration of our present reality. I’m going to be speaking to our current political and social climate, and the gloves are off — don’t run away just because you’re afraid that something in this article might impact you personally. Allow yourself an open mind, steel yourself, and dive in with me in the hope that we’ll all be better for it.

What if we, the people, us ordinary citizens, had the power to set events in motion that could begin to repair this wounded nation, this country that has sunk deeper and deeper into crisis for at least the last half decade? We do have that power, but many have to re-evaluate their decision making process when it comes to placing their support and casting their vote. There are far too many preconceptions — on both sides of the isle — that are literally ruining this country.

I have had the pleasure of being well acquainted with people in just about every direction of the political compass. I have family members and close friends who are bleeding-heart liberals who wouldn’t blink at taxing the wealthy 80% and giving it all to the poor, and others who would throw out the entire Constitution and replace it with the Bible if they could. I personally can’t identify with either end of that spectrum, but since political conversations were never taboo in my circles, I have certainly heard most of the arguments.

While the number of people who believe in those radical measures are truly in the minority, it is the pull they effect on the general, more centered population that influences our society the most. And as I have discovered, the loss in rationality as we approach the far left or far right is truly frightening. Because our greatest issues in modern society are arising from the right, that is what I am going to address.

Where to begin? Well, inevitably when you criticize the right you’re labeled a liberal. First of all, that shouldn’t be true because when an institution you once supported has fallen into shambles you should be allowed to criticize it without being declared an enemy (at least that’s the theory with free speech). Second of all, it is appalling that conservatives have managed to make “liberal” a dirty word. In defense of true liberals, we wouldn’t have a functioning nation (as dysfunctional as it is right now) if it weren’t for the courage of people who were willing to take the risk of change. If it weren’t for liberals, there would still be slaves and women still wouldn’t have the right to vote. The whole country would still be controlled by the Crotchety Old White Man’s Club. In defense of conservatives, too much change too fast can destroy a society, and traditionally the Republicans were the ones who were more responsible with the nation’s coffers.

Notice I said “traditionally.” I think we have arrived at the meat of my argument. When I was young, I remember seeing an Introduction to American Politics book that had a nice little chart outlining the conventional differences between our two primary political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. If I recall, it listed Republicans as being strong on national defense, in favor of small federal government and responsible spending of tax dollars, typically in favor of tax cuts, and strong defenders of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights as our founding fathers wrote them. Democrats were described as more socially responsible to the poor and needy, usually spent more money in pursuit of such social programs (hence requiring higher taxes), and generally more progressive in terms of writing or refining laws to meet modern needs.

The typical registered Republican will tell you that they are a member of that party because of one or several of the following things: low taxes, small federal government, and family values (or some variation thereof). Let’s consider these things for a moment.

This is the part where conservatives think I’m about to attack them, and if you are one your eyes are likely beginning to glaze over or you’re about to hit the Back button. Hang with me, because I’m about to reveal the underlying problem to all of this. Are you ready? The Republican party is not really Republican anymore.

Think about it. Remember what we just mentioned as “traditional” Republican values? Low taxes: nope, hasn’t helped anybody except those who make a ton of money already. Small federal government? Absolutely not, the Republican-controlled Senate, House, and White House have passed more federal laws than any administration in recent history, and many of these laws (for brevity I’ll leave you to look them up on your own if you’re so in the dark that you don’t know what I’m talking about) are frightening in the degree to which they limit personal freedoms or benefit large corporations — these are the laws that in the good ol’ days would have had our stereotypical gun-totin’ defenders of freedom from the old South banging on their Congressman’s door with rifles. Family values and moral responsibility? What a joke with the current Republican party. Outright lies, rampant and unfounded blame games (no one in the party acts like an adult and takes responsibility for anything anymore), and now gay congressmen who molest boys and get it covered up for them by their other party buddies. I’m not even going to get into that one, other than to say I have never felt more betrayed by my government in my life.

So here’s my question to people who still walk into the voting booth and pull the “Republican Party” lever: WHY are you so blind to this? Why are you rewarding people who have lied and cheated and dragged us into a horrible war that has not made us safer and who have trampled on the Bill of Rights!? I’ll tell you why: religion. I’m a Roman Catholic, a Christian who believes in God and Jesus, and it makes me sick to my stomach that conservatives have perverted Christianity into a tool — no, a weapon — to get people to vote for them. It trumps the blatant fear-mongering that is a favorite practice of the Bush administration, the finger-pointing that both parties inevitably engage in, and even the issues of money, race, and social status that affect us all. It disgusts me that the majority of the Republican party subtly yet consistently propagates the notion that they are the only party who believes in God. That Democrats and everyone else are automatically atheist. That if you vote against the Republican party, you are voting against Christianity. It is moral fear and bandwagon politics at its worst.

It is revolting that so many citizens of this country, who I believe are otherwise trying to be good people, so easily fall into this propaganda trap. Let’s face it: like it or not, religion is going to enter into politics. The real problem is when fundamentalist politicians start legislating their religious beliefs, and therefore restricting or infringing on people’s rights whose beliefs may be different. During the past few years, I have lost count of the number of times I have wanted to stand in the capitol and scream, “Does anyone remember that this country was founded on the right to practice any faith???” I would love to go and ask the Kansas Board of Education how mandating that one religion’s belief — Christianity’s Creationism a.k.a. Intelligent Design — be taught in public school science class does not trample on the Bill of Rights. No one has been able to explain that — because it can’t be explained. It is fundamentally criminal to this nation’s foundation when things like that happen — which brings me to my next point: conservatives need to stop living in denial.

Guess what: not everyone is going to be like you, right-wingers. I, a Christian, have accepted the fact that there are people of many different faiths and we will never change that. For the good of this country, it is your patriotic obligation to stop trying to force everyone to believe what you believe, by electing these crackpot politicians who want to throw out certain portions of the Bill of Rights. We wouldn’t be here, you wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the foresight of our founding fathers to grant you the freedoms that you are now abusing. I have heard fundamentalist Christians speak of love and tolerance and acceptance and equality, and it makes me want to vomit with the perversion of it all, the perversion they are associating with my own beliefs, in the blindness and hypocrisy they exhibit. It’s not the people who don’t believe in Christ who are causing strife in our nation, as these fundamentalists would have us believe, it’s they themselves who condemn and who can’t separate their own beliefs with what is best for the whole country.

What do I mean by that? Take abortion. I personally believe it is utterly wrong, because that’s part of my faith. However, I am still willing to vote for a politician who supports a woman’s right to choose. Why? Because it is her body, and she must be guided by her own faith, not mine, and whether I like it or not that is the better course for the country as a whole — to say otherwise would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Or consider other moral grounds, such as adultery and criminal actions: former President Clinton, for example, did a horrible, despicable thing when he cheated on his wife with Monica. President Bush did a horrible, despicable thing when he signed into law a declaration making himself and other members of his party immune from a law passed in 1996 (by a Republican congress, please note) that makes people criminally punishable for violating the Geneva Conventions on torture, which Bush has done. Which morally deplorable action, do you think, actually hurt the country? Whether or not the torture was justified is an entirely different discussion — Bush broke a law, and then passed another law after the fact to void it. I don’t care if the original law made it illegal to buy cabbage, if someone bought cabbage then they need to be held accountable to the law. We are a nation of laws, yet Bush, in that moment, made us less than that. He made us a nation of thugs. But…conservatives will still vote for him, simply because he’s a conservative and they can’t think for themselves, no matter how morally bankrupt he is. Those types of people are the most dangerous of all.

If you are one of those who is still, in the current political climate, automatically inclined to vote for Republicans, I beg you to take a moment to ask yourself some questions. Are you voting for that person simply because you, for one reason or another, equate “Republican” with “Christian”? If so, take a long hard look at your candidate, their history, and the people they associate with. Do they truly have good moral values, or do their actions contradict their words? Do they honor our nation’s highest values of freedom of all kinds, or do they push their own religious agenda? If someone claims to be a Christian but consistently opposes bills that would do things like feed the homeless and help the poor get on their feet, how is that morally justifiable with their — or your — faith? If a politician lies to you about an important issue, and you know he has outright lied to you, why should you place your trust in him again?

Use your beliefs to guide you — but never automatically choose someone because they claim to hold the same beliefs. Think for yourself. Be a responsible citizen and think of your country. Then make a decision — Republican, Democrat, or otherwise — and you can be respected for that decision no matter what it is. If you automatically choose one candidate or another because of deep-rooted distaste for the other, or preconceptions about what that candidate’s party should be, be it from your parents, faith, or friends, then you are contributing to the destruction of our democracy. Apathy in decision making by voters is at least as dangerous as the apathy of citizens who don’t vote at all.

Be true to the values of this great country. I implore you, with every ounce of patriotism I have, to dedicate yourself to choosing the best possible candidate not for yourself but for the country as a whole. If we can all do that, then we can all have a hand in repairing our damaged nation. America needs our help, and you don’t have to put on a uniform to serve her. Choose wisely.

Digg this story

Check out voting records at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee’s web site.