To the Polls
Feb. 5th, 2008 08:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumToday I go to vote in the first Democratic Primary I've ever voted in.
Not because I was some "Republican" and suddenly changed. 22 years ago I became eligible to vote. I had to choose a party, because one can't vote in the primaries for any party to which one doesn't belong, I had to choose one. Back then, I was more in the middle. So I looked at the state of the world, or at least the part I had influence over, and decided the party I most wanted to have a say in controlling was the Republicans, becuase they were the one most likely to diverge from what I wanted them to do.
I failed.
This year, looking at the issues (will we recover a nation ruled by law, restrain our foreign policy, repair our infrastructure, address the growing inequity between rich and poor, start to repair our broken healthcare system, restore some checks and balances in our gov't), I decided there was no one in the Republican roster who would even pretend to care about those issues, and there were a couple of the Democratic candidates who did.
Neither of them are still in the fight today. Chris Dodd did what he could to raise the issues in Iowa, and went back to fighting the fight in the halls of the Senate. Edwards, for reasons understandable, but not completely clear, bowed out before Super Tuesday.
So I have two candidates to choose from (I could vote for Edwards, he's still on the ballot, but that delegate would have free choice to vote for whomever they choose, and that sort of advisory vote seems mostly wasted to me).
I'm voting for Obama. It's not that I think him a paragon. It's not that I think Clinton a villian.
It's that, for what I think the country needs, he's the best candidate. He's not going to overturn the things I want fixed, and make them right in the blink of an eye. He's not, though he casts himself as one, an outsider. He's in the "centrist" chunk of the Democratic Party (which is cast as "Leftist" mostly because the political action in the country [as opposed to the sensibilities of the people] has drifted to the right).
But I'm not a radical. I don't think I can get all I want in a single election. I do think that, for reasons not completely clear, he's the candidate who has the greatest sense, and promise, for a breath of fresh air. He was against the war from the start; that matters a lot. He was publically willing to buck the trend.
That doesn't mean I hate Clinton. I can say (without really surprising anyone) that I'll vote for whomever the Democrats run against the Republicans; because any idea that the present Republican Party can be trusted near the levers of power has to be seen as silly.
I prefer someone who will honestly tell me they intend to pay for what they buy (I've never understood why tax and spend was bad, and spend and borrow was good). From Reagan to the present, they've had the bully pulpit for 20 of the past 28 years. They screwed the pooch, shafted the poor, allowed business to steal from the people (directly, and then indirectly.... the Savings and Loans went under, people lost their money, and then the People had to bail them out, the Mortgage Mess is much the same... it's seeds lie in the same set of deregulations).
They got control of the House, and then went on a rampage. A child's temper tantrum wherein ancient affairs were used to hound the president, and the Special Prosecutor was allowed to change his brief; again, and again, and again.
When they got control of both branches, all that oversight went out the window. The same sorts of things in the President's past... not important. The President "wagging the dog" with "Terror Alerts" not important.
A president who signed bills with his fingers publically crossed? Not a problem.
A president who admits to breaking the law, and says he intends to keep doing it? Not a problem.
A president who tells his aids, and former aids to ignore subpoenas? Not a problem,
A president who has attorneys general who think torture is dependant on who is being tortured, and the "information we might get? Not a problem.
Have the Democrats been complicit? Yes. They have not pressed the questions, they have not pushed to see if the White House is, yet, willing to make the blatant assertion, in plain public, that the Law Does Not Apply.
But they haven't been going about saying that challenges to the asssertions that the president is above the law are undermining the nation. They've not called those who want to enforce the law traitors in all but name (when Reps, and Senators say that looking into such questions is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, that's what they are saying).
I know that can't be fixed overnight, much as I might like someone to overturn the tables of the money changers.
But we have to start somewhere. I think Obama is the best hope in the field at the moment.
I think Clinton is second best.
I think any of the republicans is more of the same, and a closer approach to the system being broken past repair.
Not because I was some "Republican" and suddenly changed. 22 years ago I became eligible to vote. I had to choose a party, because one can't vote in the primaries for any party to which one doesn't belong, I had to choose one. Back then, I was more in the middle. So I looked at the state of the world, or at least the part I had influence over, and decided the party I most wanted to have a say in controlling was the Republicans, becuase they were the one most likely to diverge from what I wanted them to do.
I failed.
This year, looking at the issues (will we recover a nation ruled by law, restrain our foreign policy, repair our infrastructure, address the growing inequity between rich and poor, start to repair our broken healthcare system, restore some checks and balances in our gov't), I decided there was no one in the Republican roster who would even pretend to care about those issues, and there were a couple of the Democratic candidates who did.
Neither of them are still in the fight today. Chris Dodd did what he could to raise the issues in Iowa, and went back to fighting the fight in the halls of the Senate. Edwards, for reasons understandable, but not completely clear, bowed out before Super Tuesday.
So I have two candidates to choose from (I could vote for Edwards, he's still on the ballot, but that delegate would have free choice to vote for whomever they choose, and that sort of advisory vote seems mostly wasted to me).
I'm voting for Obama. It's not that I think him a paragon. It's not that I think Clinton a villian.
It's that, for what I think the country needs, he's the best candidate. He's not going to overturn the things I want fixed, and make them right in the blink of an eye. He's not, though he casts himself as one, an outsider. He's in the "centrist" chunk of the Democratic Party (which is cast as "Leftist" mostly because the political action in the country [as opposed to the sensibilities of the people] has drifted to the right).
But I'm not a radical. I don't think I can get all I want in a single election. I do think that, for reasons not completely clear, he's the candidate who has the greatest sense, and promise, for a breath of fresh air. He was against the war from the start; that matters a lot. He was publically willing to buck the trend.
That doesn't mean I hate Clinton. I can say (without really surprising anyone) that I'll vote for whomever the Democrats run against the Republicans; because any idea that the present Republican Party can be trusted near the levers of power has to be seen as silly.
I prefer someone who will honestly tell me they intend to pay for what they buy (I've never understood why tax and spend was bad, and spend and borrow was good). From Reagan to the present, they've had the bully pulpit for 20 of the past 28 years. They screwed the pooch, shafted the poor, allowed business to steal from the people (directly, and then indirectly.... the Savings and Loans went under, people lost their money, and then the People had to bail them out, the Mortgage Mess is much the same... it's seeds lie in the same set of deregulations).
They got control of the House, and then went on a rampage. A child's temper tantrum wherein ancient affairs were used to hound the president, and the Special Prosecutor was allowed to change his brief; again, and again, and again.
When they got control of both branches, all that oversight went out the window. The same sorts of things in the President's past... not important. The President "wagging the dog" with "Terror Alerts" not important.
A president who signed bills with his fingers publically crossed? Not a problem.
A president who admits to breaking the law, and says he intends to keep doing it? Not a problem.
A president who tells his aids, and former aids to ignore subpoenas? Not a problem,
A president who has attorneys general who think torture is dependant on who is being tortured, and the "information we might get? Not a problem.
Have the Democrats been complicit? Yes. They have not pressed the questions, they have not pushed to see if the White House is, yet, willing to make the blatant assertion, in plain public, that the Law Does Not Apply.
But they haven't been going about saying that challenges to the asssertions that the president is above the law are undermining the nation. They've not called those who want to enforce the law traitors in all but name (when Reps, and Senators say that looking into such questions is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, that's what they are saying).
I know that can't be fixed overnight, much as I might like someone to overturn the tables of the money changers.
But we have to start somewhere. I think Obama is the best hope in the field at the moment.
I think Clinton is second best.
I think any of the republicans is more of the same, and a closer approach to the system being broken past repair.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 05:29 pm (UTC)Today is the first time I have wanted to vote in the primary.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 05:47 pm (UTC)K.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:12 pm (UTC)K. [though if he has thoroughly dropped out by then, those delegates would be free to vote for someone else]
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:20 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:05 pm (UTC)K.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:41 pm (UTC)I don't know. I think, even looking at that, that I'd have to reccomend an Obama vote; because I have no way to influence Edwards actions, and I want Obama to get the nod (since Edwards can't).
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:19 pm (UTC)Here's the problem to be answered, and here's how I answered for myself.
Edwards has, and will get more, delegates.
They have to vote for him, on the first ballot. After that, they are free to vote for whomever they want.
Unless he pulls out, then they can vote for anyone, on the first ballot.
The theses are: Voting for Edwards sends a message to the party that his ideas matter to you. That's an important consideration.
Voting fo Edwards commits a delegate who likes Edwards to the convention.
Edwards can pull out of the race, completely, just before the convention; endorse a candidate and so swing the nomination.
Given the nature of the Democratic party's structure (the vote of the people can only outweigh the wishes of the party if the people are damned-near unanimous), I don't see that as a persuasive reason to vote my conscience, above the practical matter of wanting to actually have a direct say in who get the nod.
Nothing I do can persuade (nor predict) what Edwards will do with his delgates. I have the chance to make it certain that Obama gets at least one more.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:25 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:55 pm (UTC)No I don't like what he would do on abortion rights but on Civil Liberties he is singing my song.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:36 pm (UTC)That's no small part of the appeal he has to groups like the Aryan Nations and the KKK.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 10:22 pm (UTC)And I personally like groups like the Pink Pistols.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 01:19 am (UTC)That has to come from the bottom up.
I am afraid that people will do as you are discussing, and steal votes which would otherwise go to the Dem candidate. So if he makes an independent run, a lot of effort will have to go into making it plain he's not a good idea for the presidency.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:39 pm (UTC)I think McCain has the best chance of winning the actual race, so I'd like to see Romney get the nod.
For votes... I'd like to see Huckabee get enough that the RRR decided to convince him to run an independent campaign.
I think Ron Paul is planning one, and that the more votes he gets, the more likely he is to run.
I am afraid that, should he run, his stand on the war, and the way his Liberianism is being packaged (ignoring his stand on choice, and his appalling attitudes [to be kind] on race) will actually pull more Dem-leaning votes, and he'll act as something of a benefit to the Republican Campaign.
So, I'm conflicted. I'd say vote for Paul, and then work like hell to show his warts.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:46 pm (UTC)Just personally, I want to see McCain win the nomination. In part I want that because I admire the man, even though I don't think he should be president. In part I want it to see if Rush Limbaugh can actually foam at the mouth until November without having a heart attack. I also think a contest between McCain and Obama would be a contest of issues, and I think that would be good for the country.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:54 pm (UTC)He started pissing it away in 2003, and it was all gone when he played the smoke and mirrors on torture.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:23 pm (UTC)Unless a pair of real Dems shows up to contest Feinstein, the local races for choosing the instate Repub offices still has the promise of changing the nature of the party.
I don't see myself as a partisan, per se, so doing that which shapes the political landscape, as a whole, is the part I work on. Right now the Republicans need more gardening than the Dems (though the argument is there, that choosing more aggessive Dems might do much the same. I have until I re-register to contemplate the question).
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 01:10 am (UTC)I am choosing the best of what's offered me.
It's not bad, but it ain't what I want.
TK
I Changed My Party Registration Too
Date: 2008-02-05 10:03 pm (UTC)Your sentiments match mine pretty closely.
BTW -- I voted against the Indian Gaming propositions, not on any well-reasoned grounds. I just find gambling and casinos sort of esthetically repulsive -- why enable bigger, flashier ones? Plus gambling is sort of a voluntary regressive tax.
Re: I Changed My Party Registration Too
Date: 2008-02-06 01:16 am (UTC)It seems the system (at least in L.A.) for out of party voting is confused. The ballot for cross-over voters should have been better built.
I had to go and exchange my ballot because I punched that I was an American Independant crossing the line.
Much of that could have been fixed by making the "I am crossing party lines" statement on a separate page, and more clearly worded.
It seems some "decline to state" voters will have their votes discarded.
Obama is already thinking of legal action to have them counted (as a function of "clear intent".
I did go back and double check my ballot, where I discovered I'd missed a bubble.
TK
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 04:50 am (UTC)Have you seen this sort of commentary?
I've felt much this way about the politics of the U.S.A.
for the past 40 some years.
I still have SOME hope.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 11:27 am (UTC)