The lesser of two evils

As another election season comes to a close I can’t help but reflect on the past couple of years and say: Thank God it’s over!

Being a political junky you’d think I look forward to election season in the same way a fat kid looks forward to dessert, or dinner, for that matter.

But I don’t.

I have become so disillusioned by the process that I nearly don’t vote. (Living in a Blue state like Washington means my vote is pretty worthless anyway.)

I trace it back to the 2000 election. And no, this isn’t going to be a Bush-bashing-if-only-Gore-had-won column. It’s going to be a "this process has hosed me ever since I cast my first vote" rant.

Being 21 in the year 2000, it was the first Presidential election I could vote in. I was stoked. We were that the end of the Clinton Administration, the economy was doing well, 9/11 hadn’t happened and I was looking forward to keeping the good times rolling by electing Al Gore…pre-An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore.

Truth be told, I didn’t dislike G.W. at this point, in fact I said he’s a guy I’d never vote for, but would love to have beers with.

Then came election night. I cast my ballot for the Gore camp and headed home to watch the landslide. States turned blue and I felt a part of something.

Then things changed, states started turning Red and I began to be confused. How can this happen?

By then end of it all, I had cast a vote for the winner of the popular vote, yet somehow the other candidate was President-elect.

Not a great first experience.

Then came 2004, and after my experience in 2000 and Bush’s handling of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, I was ready to vote the bum out of office.

This was the first presidential campaign I paid close attention to. And I was shocked by the ferocity of the campaign ads. From Swift boats to Flip-flopping to national security, instead of candidates explaining who was better for the job, they focused on why the other candidate wasn’t.

I couldn’t fathom how anyone could vote for G.W. a second time, but again I was forced to sit in front of a TV and watch just enough states turn red to give Bush a return trip to the White House.

Burned yet again.

Being a student of politics, I knew beating an incumbent was a long-shot. But what really stuck with me were those campaign ads, from both sides. The same can be said for the ads used during the hotly contested Gubernatorial race here in Washington that year.

I guess ads like these are as much a commentary on the American public as the folks who produce them. I mean, if they didn’t get results, they wouldn’t get made.

Sadly this election process has been boiled-down to winning at all costs proposition. As opposed to a refined exposition of why a candidate is qualified for the position and why they are the best one for the job.

To put this in real terms, when interviewing for a job, you don’t slander other candidates to better your chances. You simply present your case as to why you are the best option for the position.

It’s too bad the same precedent doesn’t apply to the election process.

Instead of keeping things positive, and focusing on their strong points, candidates rely on spin and extort the truth to paint opponents in a bad light. Granted, this is an effective tool for winning an election, but my question is: Does doing so benefit Americans?

Coming out of the battle for the Democratic nomination both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton had gone so negative against a fellow Democrat that some feared the party was permanently fractured. Fueling fears that Clinton supports would not support Obama as the Democratic nominee for President. Sure, Obama had won, but at what cost?

Folks feared Clinton supporters would jump ship and vote for McCain out of spite.

This game of division, perfected with great success by the Republicans and operatives like Dick Morris in the early 90’s and more recently Karl Rove, must stop. To be fair, Morris was hired as a consultant during Bill Clinton’s presidency, so Republicans aren’t alone in my criticism. All sides are guilty.

I am no longer interested in hearing a candidate speak more about their opponent than themselves. Both McCain and Obama seemed to spend more time paraphrasing each other than actually hitting their own talking points.

Attack ads also should be curbed. Democracy is a special animal and the current trends in campaign strategies only cheapen a noble tradition. It got so bad this Sunday that I turned-off the TV during Football, yes Football, because I could no longer tolerate the vicious attack ads.

So as a reforming political junkie, I will say this. Think about this past election season and how your candidate campaigned. Then consider if they warrant your vote.

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I look forward to the day I can vote for the best person for the job. Sadly, I don’t see that being an option for a long, long time.

Time-Out!

I gotta admit, I was impressed this week.

As this election has dropped lower and lower on the respectability scale, I was happy to see one candidate put politics aside and put the American people first.

I applaud John McCain for stepping-up, suspending his campaign, putting-off the Presidential debate and returning to Washington to address “the greatest financial disaster since The Great Depression,” and broker/vote-on a bail-out plan.

Wait, isn’t that his job?

Oh right, it is.

Where’s the news coverage when I get up in the morning and slog myself into the office?

How can someone, who is running for President think asking for a ‘time-out’ is a smart political move?

What happens if (please God don’t let it happen) future-President McCain is signing a bill at his desk and the phone rings?

Will he forget what he’s doing?

Will the bill get signed?

Can someone actually call the Oval Office directly?

I can see the sentiment: Put the American people first. I just doubt the sincerity.

The move looks to be more of a political ploy than anything else, especially given the actions of GOP operatives in the state of Michigan, a crucial swing state.

I was recently forwarded this story, which outlines moves by GOP operatives to invalidate many Michigan voters because they have been foreclosed upon. It is gerrymandering plain and simple, as many of the voters being targeted are presumed to be Barack Obama supporters.

Hmmm, McCain suspends campaign to resolve the financial crisis, while the GOP attempts to prey upon foreclosure victims to better his chances of winning in Michigan.

Will the Real John McCain please stand-up?

With his return to Washington to pass a bail-out plan that does nothing to better the situation of the average homeowner facing foreclosure, but benefits the large investment firms on Wall Street who made millions getting everyone into this mess…

I think the real one has.

But back to the ‘time-out’ McCain requested with regards to the debate.

The President, whoever it is, will face numerous tough situations and decisions. And sorry Senator McCain, but they don’t come one at a time.

Asking for the delayed debate shows nothing but weakness and a bit of “Uh, what’s going on?” cluelessness.

Does the issue need to be addressed? Most Def.

Is it McCain and Obama’s job to vote on this bill? Yup.

But both are running for President and both have missed numerous Senate votes during this election season.

I appreciate Obama’s ‘deal with things as they come’ approach.

It’s the response I’d hope to get from a President.

The Fuddy-duddy effect

I came across a piece last week by syndicated columnist George F. Will that got me a little riled-up.

Here’s a link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373230_will03.html

While Will does raise a couple of good points, I think this piece exemplifies why so many older folks are uncomfortable with the idea of electing Barack Obama.

I remember having a discussion with a Hilary Clinton supporter debating the merits of each candidate. And the discussion about Obama kept coming back to one question: “Change, just what does that mean?”

At the time, I couldn’t answer that question to either the Clinton-supporter’s or my satisfaction.

After a bit of reflection I am still trying to come-up with a solid definition, but here’s my working definition.

Change:
- In politics as usual.
- In how America, views/interacts with the rest of the world.
- In what Americans expect from their government.
- Anything but George Bush.

Thank goodness for term limits, the rule hosed us by forcing Clinton from office, but we all win this time around when Bush gets sent packing.

My definition of change seems to really scare older, I mean, more experienced-voters. As evidenced by this snip-it from Will’s column: ”Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities,”

Change is scary, so I understand the knee-jerk “sky-is-falling” reaction to anything new. But I cannot comprehend how someone as intelligent as Will can insinuate that an Obama presidency will be a “calamitous consequences of calamities” when you look at the last eight years and consider his predecessor.

The sentiment is that with anyone but Obama, you are getting a known quantity, which I am willing to concede. John McCain, once the maverick of the Senate, has now fallen into line with the status-quo republican election machine and now looks to be G.W. 2.0. What’s really scary about this new McCain is that he seems to have a bit of a Napoleon Complex. As in, he needs to prove that he is not just a replacement for G.W., but that he’s even tougher on terrorism. I am absolutely terrified to see what “calamity” will come from that.

America has never had its hands clean when it comes to foreign policy. As I’ve noted before, America has been bully to the world. And regardless of the President, democrat or republican, has steadfastly acted in ways that bettered American interests abroad regardless of consequences.

The time has come for that to change.

This is an example of the change that Obama supporters like me are talking about. Obama is willing to talk with other countries. I am encouraged by that. My foreign policy experience is a bit thin, but last time I checked, it’s hard to negotiate when one party has the barrel of a gun in their mouth.

Who knows what will happen if Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez sit-down for brandy and cigars at Camp David. But I am worried where we’ll end-up if they don’t. Just the idea that some of these politically marginalized countries may have a seat at the table will be enough to ease tensions and start a dialogue that will lead away from worrisome rhetoric and possible military action.

Will’s argument seems to be based on the sentiment that the world is too big and one man is too insignificant to make any real change. Perhaps that is experience speaking to my youthful ambition. Or perhaps that is just the cynicism of the elderly looking back on their own wasted life.

Just because you’ve been there and done that, doesn’t mean it’s the only way it can be done. America can elect its oldest President ever and maintain the status quo. Or America can roll the dice on change and elect Obama.

Honestly, I can’t see anyone doing worse than the guy who’d been in office the past eight years. But I’d hate to give McCain a chance to surprise me…