Politics

[tikiera]

If Obama wins the nomination, I will be once again voting against a candidate, rather than for one.

Obama gives one hell of a speech.  But in debates I have trouble telling exactly what his views are.  And he's too moderate for me.  He wants to leave the gay marriage situation at the state level (though he does want to revoke the DoMA) -

"But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

I don't want this decided at the state level.  

And I no longer trust him regarding choice:

"The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."

Some control.  Some control.

I don't trust to him help end the slow erosion of abortion rights.  I think he will make concessions here and there, and that he doesn't care enough about this issue that I can trust him to keep our best interests at heart.

If Roe vs. Wade dies with a whimper instead of a bang, it's still dead. 

I was hoping for a election where I was proud to cast my vote for my candidate, rather casting my vote in fear of what the next four years could bring.

I am watching the arguments on my feminist blog debating not voting for Obama - staying home, voting for a third party candidate - and I have always come down on the side of doing less harm with your vote - if you are pro-choice, not voting for the candidate that will nonimate pro-choice judges is stupid.  (And henceforth for the other issues - normally one candidate is more moderate than the other).

But I am sick and tired of it.  I am sick and tired of voting in fear instead of pride.  I am sick and tired of democrat candidates hating to be called liberals.

One of the articles that quoted Obama at the debates shown him saying over and over again "It's not liberal to want (universal healthcare, etc).

Damn it, is liberal to want universal healthcare.  It is liberal to advocate birth control sex ed rather than just telling kids to not have sex. 

There is nothing wrong with being liberal. 

And a democratic candidate that feels that he need to not be a liberal, is a candidate that I don't want to vote for.

I don't want to see this country get worse.  But maybe if the people who don't consider it shameful to be called liberal stay home or vote third party we might eventually get a candidate who doesn't think being a liberal is shameful.

Comments

[ngrylilasianboy.livejournal.com]

I empathize with Tikiera. It's a darn depressing election year. I realized my prospects have seriously degraded when I cheer up inwardly at the thought of Nader being in the race; and not because he may or may not take votes away from anyone, but rather because I am beginning to wonder if he might be a tolerable choice.

I'm a Non-Partisan, but this year feels like the year of no choices. The Democratic ticket is demagoguery at its finest. I can't find a single politically-consistent nominee amongst their numbers, and its chilling to think that every platform being bandied about these last few months is likely to become a set of complete and utter lies that will be tossed to the wayside come January of 2009.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the Republican party to drag itself out of the Stone-Age and present an actual alternative for the Thinking Man's vote. No luck there. Apparently to vote Republican this year, you've got to turn in your brains as well as your balls. There's not a single nominee who can be fiscally savvy without being socially stuck in the mindset of Pilgrims and Shakers. And I bemoan the utter lack of Second Amendment Protection in any of the nominees as well. Well, Ron Paul maybe has some potential, but socially he's stuck the era of Harper Lee's childhood.

So yes, just like Tikiera, this is a year of finding the candidate you wnat to do the least amount of damage over the next four years, and voting against the others. I'm wondering if joining the write-in campaign for Mickey Mouse might be a better use of my vote this year.

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the thinking man's level of cynicism. I'd like to offer up a few of McCain's finer qualities: He's astonishingly dishonest, ineloquent, angry, and unlikely to persuade anyone of anything at any point. His arguments consistently descend swiftly to ad hominems, which is particularly problematic when he later adopts the positions he's attacked (see corporation taxation levels, in particular). He bears grudges and is unlikely to maintain positive bipartisan relationships for much of the time. He's keen on vetoes and hostile to spending (although he is pretty pro-regulation). Is the thinking man keen on 4 years of gridlock? How much does emotional appeal matter to the thinking man? Does the thinking man get terribly upset about the "gook" thing? If the answers are yes, not much, and no, and the thinking man wants a president who is likely to appoint centrist judges (given that they'd need to be confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate), I'd have thought that there was a candidate.

On the specific issues: His NRA ratings are because of his assaults on the 1st amendment; he's pretty sound on the 2nd. He was one of the signatories on the Hutchinson brief on Heller. I'm not sure how much better you get than believing in an absolute right for individuals to own guns for self defense. Horrific human being though he is, on that issue (and trade) he's head and shoulders above every president since Reagan, and before Reagan since... Coolidge?

Not many of the Pilgrims or shakers publically dated strippers, or publically maintained many mistresses before leaving their wives for one of them.