So this post starts with the reading of this article from Rolling Stone about John McCain. You are left after reading with a picture of a truly disgusting human being, the sort of person you would not want as a friend, the sort of person whom would make you reconsider friendship with anyone who would want him as a friend. While the article is undeniably partisan and biased, I don't think any of it is particularly untrue (in fact most of it has been a part of the public record for decades). I can admit that I have been somewhat taken by the McCain narrative over the years, and would have been tempted to vote for him in 2000 had he actually been the nominee. The fact that most of this narrative is an invention isn't terribly surprising to me.
In fact, I'm not convinced that Barack Obama is a "good person" either. I'm not really convinced that any of our Presidents have been or even should be good people. I loved the complaints in 2000 that Ralph Nader was only running for his "ego". Of course he's running for his ego! Everyone is! In order for you to get to the point where you can say with a straight face, "I think I should be the leader of the largest country in the world and de facto leader of the free world" you have to be a raging egomaniac. And in order to have gotten the political positions and favors necessary for anyone else to want to put you there you will have had to do a great many things that make you seriously unlikeable. In truth, Nader was running despite having very little chance of winning just to try to influence the debate away from the corporatism of both parties, which seems the least ego-driven of the candidates, especially as he didn't change his views or plans just to suit his own "Likability".
Truly I'm not looking for a President that I like. I'm looking for one who will represent me, will more often than not make the right choice for the country rather than for their own careers, and who have the political skills to get things done. And I haven't seen a candidate like that in a long time and I just can't support voting for someone who continues to support the same lowest common denominator crap that has dominated this country for the last 30 years (or more). I will not vote for evil, even if it is the lesser one. And for all the poetic talk of change I haven't seen anything from either of these candidates that makes me believe they will offer anything more than cosmetically superficially different.
If you'd have told me 10 years ago I'd be considering voting for Bob Barr, I'd have punched you in the mouth. But here we are. The choices get worse, the political courage gets more and more rare, and the country slips further. Just bring on the Visigoths and lets move on to whatever is next.
Notes:
The Rolling Stone article is long, but worth reading for an incredible portrait of someone so unlikeable who has managed to be very popular in the Senate. It really makes me wonder how much worse every one else must be.
Please don't tell me about how bad or good McCain or Obama are, or ask me to defend them. This is not a partisan post, I assure you I'm equally disgusted by both of them.
How ironic. For the first time I am considering *not* voting for the Libertarian and you *are* considering voting for the Libertarian.
OK, that's funny.
I'm not sure how seriously I'm considering it. If it was "anyone but Bob Barr" I'd consider it more seriously. Unfortunately, the truth is that a protest vote for Nader in 2008 won't have the impact it did 8 or 12 years ago, although I think he's much more relevant today than he was then. And I'm not even sure he's running, which shows just how unseriously he's being taken, since I pay more attention than most.
Its not the first time, though. I *considered* voting for Harry Browne, though I didn't do it. But he was certainly higher on my list in 2000 than Bush or Gore. My estimation of Gore has gone up slightly in the years since, though I'd still be hesitant. Bush, well I don't really have to say it do I? But I'd vote for Harry this year, were he, you know, breathing.
The Rolling Stone piece was just too slanted to take seriously.
That said, I really can't say I'm in love with the idea of voting for McCain.
Being neither religious nor a gun owner, I really shouldn't (still) be pissed off at Obama for his bitter comments in S.F. But for some reason, when I think of the people I grew up with who love hunting, love this God fellow they believe in, and do so because of family tradition, commitment, and a sense of positive purpose... I should probably drop it considering that most of the people that I am feeling proxy outrage for are lifelong Democrats and will be voting for that one themselves.
If it helps you, a vote for the Libertarian candidate can serve one of two purposes. The first is support of the Libertarian philosophy or for the actual candidate. The second though, due to the party's anti-government bent, can also serve as a vote of no-confidence in the current two-party ruled system.
Me? If I don't miss my guess, it's just one more presidential cycle before I can (constitutionally) start writing you in, Ish. If you can't be cruel to your friends, who can you be cruel to?
It is slanted, but I'm still not convinced that it isn't true. At the very least both his abandonment of his disabled first wife and his central role in the S&L scandal are on public record and beyond dispute. Most of the other stuff just paints a picture of a spoiled brat with a Navy legacy who refused to grow up, and having known a few fighter pilots and a few spoiled brats, its not a difficult picture for me to imagine. So despite the fact that the article was obviously written with the hopes of swaying aging hipsters against voting for McCain (a strange aim, it seems to me) I don't think that really invalidates any of what's said in the article. In fact, I think that's one of my main points. I'm not terribly surprised to discover McCain is such a disgustingly foul sonuvabitch of a human being. I would be equally unsurprised to discover similar things about That One.
Yeah, I agree that Obama's comments in SF are hideously paternalistic and offensive. About the best thing you can say in his defense is that he was just pandering to those crazy Franciscans and didn't really mean any of it, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to make me feel better about it. It certainly doesn't belie any departure from politics as usual. But having grown up around many well-meaning (but hideously paternalistic) liberals, I absolutely believe that he meant every word.
I agree in theory with your defense of voting libertarian. But it seems like they've gone crazy this year too, choosing a candidate who has never supported their policies until this year, and also appears to be a real prick. I'm not convinced that name recognition is all that important.
You are correct that 2012 would be my first Constitutionally-qualified election. I'm only a slightly raging egomaniac though, so I'm still sane enough not to want the job. Not that wanting it would necessarily stop you.
If I thought you wanted the job, there would be no fun for me in writing you in.
VOTE: ISH in 2012!
"Belief you can change in."
By the way, I figure I should add this now before I get accused of that which I rail against constantly. When I say that "I won't vote for evil, even if it is a lesser one" I do not suggest that I think either John McCain or Barack Obama are evil. I do not, even if every word of the RS piece is entirely true. I don't accept the idea of evil in human beings. I merely refer to both the expression "lesser of two evils" and more directly to an evil choice in which you are forced to choose something with which you do not agree.
Oh no, Harry Browne died? :O Shows how much I pay attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naMtwqBzja0
I firmly believe that the president's only real power, apart from commanding the military, is the power of pursuasion. The prez is only as powerful as his ability to orate (at least, before Bush and Cheney start gobbling up new executive powers). And because of that, I plan on voting in Obama because I believe in his power to pursuade the people of this country to get off our asses, fix our problems, and start being responsible citizens. It's delusional, but maybe a Democratic community-organizer prez might convince us to help ourselves instead of expecting others to do it for us. That's my optimistic approach, at least.
He is eloquent. And I would really enjoy being optimistic, as it's a fault I have in many other areas and I quite enjoy it. But from what I've seen so far, I have a hard time believing that Obama is really all that different, or perhaps even more importantly that if he is different that he won't be quickly co-opted by the system he's entering. Things like public financing and a vice presidential pick like Joe Biden seem like red flags that he's far too accommodating. And I'm afraid that having a President that's overly naive (not talking about foreign policy like John McCain as I find Obama's foreign policy reasonable, but about his apparent belief that he can create change by making people sit in a room together and giving them a hug) could be as dangerous as just another political hack. Of course, McCain seems to be overly bellicose and insane *and* just another political hack, so certainly I think Obama wins in the battle of lesser evil.
I like the sentiment of your proposal, though. I think a candidate that could combine being liberal enough to provide programs to help people help themselves but conservative enough to encourage a do it yourself attitude could be popular and successful. I'm just not sure that's what I've heard from Obama so far. But I do hope you're right.
A summary of two more reality-based critiques of McCain in The Nation:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20081013/cm_thenation/45371832
Rolling Stone: more lefty-hack than The Nation.
Strange how Hitchens is continuously treated as a conservative, just because he is pro Iraq War (which the majority of the Dem party was not too long ago). But because the war and national security are the biggest issues he focuses on it is news for him to support Obama. I suppose they can claim coverage for including the word "independent", but hell, he used to write for *them*.
Also, as much as I like and respect Buckley, it would be rather out of character for him to say "John McCain was a spoiled bastard prick the day I met him 25 years ago and he still is, but now he's a *craven* spoiled bastard prick." Sounds like the high road to me. I'm just highly incredulous about personal epiphanies, especially when they happen multiple times whenever you're caught doing something unpleasant. "I used to be a spoiled drunken flyboy relying on my dad's name until I was a POW and then everything changed. Oh and I used to be an ethically vapid crony partially responsible for the biggest financial scandal in the country before 2008, but then I was caught and everything changed. OH and..." I'm afraid I still find myself of the opinion that John McCain has not changed, but that this is who he's always been He's just so desperate now that he can't afford to hide it.
It's really strange to see Hitchens labeled as a conservative. Yes, he is pro-war-on-fundamentalist-Islamic-extremism and yes, he does include the war in Iraq is part of the larger effort (never once backing down from the strategic and moral justness of that conflict). But come on, the guy still uses the word "comrade" in a non-ironic sense.
He's accused organized religion of being responsible for every (well, nearly every) moral travesty in recorded human history (even Christians). His deconstructions of Mother Teresa and Ronald Reagan are classic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/
The thing is, he dared to break step on a prominent issue and thus, has been disowned for failing an important ideological purity test. Both sides are guilty of the same sort of behavior, the Republicans are even able to admit it about themselves... but fail to recognize it as a bad thing.
I was going to give Hitchens credit for deconstructing Harry Potter too, but apparently, that was Chris Suellentrop:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073627
(my mind is a sieve, what can I say).
Apparently, Hitchens likes H.P... I think. It's sometimes hard to tell:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Hitchens-t.html
Yeah, anyone who proudly owns "Ex-Trotskyite" seems like a stretch as a conservative.
A perfect example of everything I hate about both parties, that ejecting of anyone who doesn't toe the party line. You're right the Republicans have the edge for at least being honest about it.
Ha, funny enough here he is with Eric Alterman today on Bloggingheads.tv
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/15143