An opening salvo?

This is an excerpt from an email debate between DJ Toluene and myself. I'm responding to his email, and I've included both as a point of reference to begin the public discussion. I'll let you figure out who is voting for who.


Don't be so sure that Obama is going to be the next president. You already owe me $20 for thinking that Hillary was going to be the next president.

I'll be quite happy to pay that $20.

The Democrats are actually the tax, borrow and spend party. The last Congress (they are the ones who pass budgets) to balance a budget were the Republicans. Now I understand that the Republicans haven't acted that way in a while and that's why they lost in 2006. Now I'm all for punishing them for being as corrupt as the Democrats when it comes to spending but at the same time I'm not going to reward the Democrats. The Republicans are the lesser of two evils. Although the best scenario would be for a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress. Nothing would get done. We saw what happened when the same party controlled both the Congress and the White House.

You can't punish them by electing them. I know the Democrats are your only other option, so if you see them as equally bad then I understand striking this category of voting criteria as a wash and choosing on other issues.
You're right, we did see what happened when the same party controlled both branches. I think I'm far angrier and more deeply upset about the results of that than you. Even if I did not like Obama, I would still vote for a lump of dirt over a Republican candidate based on what's happened over the past 8 years unless the Republican candidate offered up a clear and strong repudiation of most of what the current administration has done and stands for, which of course will never happen.

And if you think the war cost a lot wait until we have universal health care. A war doesn't last forever (in fact I don't think that we'll be in Iraq much longer, but entitlements do.

My objection to the war is not an economic one. I think that's a very serious side effect, but not the main issue. I only raise that point to rebut the idea that the Republican party is in any way the party of fiscal responsibility. Regardless of cost, Universal Health Care will not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of US troops, or create a more turbulent and dangerous Iraq and thus Middle East.

McCain's economic plan calls for an end to earmark spending and a freeze to the budget for a year to review all aspects of government spending. He's actually been a big proponent of this for a long time.

If he's elected and actually does this, then I'll be the first to applaud him. However, call me cynical, but I'll believe it when I see it. McCain very much seems to me like politics as usual and the Republican party as usual (as defined by the last 8 years).

Talking to your enemies without preconditions is stupid. And Iran, Syria and North Korea are our enemies. It annoys me that we haven't drilled more domestic oil, and started up more nuclear power plants, use our almost unlimited coal supplies and given more incentives for alternative fuels so we can bankrupt the Middle East.

Talking to your enemies without preconditions might not be the best of all foreign policies. However, it is far less stupid than invading them based on KNOWN FALSE conditions (and lying to the country about it). Dialog is good. The idea that we "embolden" (what a stupid word) our enemies by giving them the time of day is naive, isolationist, and in many ways has led our foreign policy where it is today.
I agree with you regarding domestic oil, nuclear power, etc.

And building a fence for Mexicans. Why shouldn't we keep out illegal immigrants? I'm all for making it easier for people to come to this country but at the same time we shouldn't allow people we don't know into the country.

I have no problem with keeping out illegal immigrants. I have a problem with much of our immigration policy, but I don't think we disagree on that. What bothers me about the way it's currently implemented is that it is indicative of the fear-mongering and base appeasing policies of the Republican party. Can you seriously tell me that a fence that costs billions is actually about security when it cuts through American homes 30 miles North of the border only to stop for a Bush connected golf resort and resume on the other side? http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2688

As far as gay marriage and abstinence programs go, the Evangelicals don't control the party. They may all vote Republican but if they truly controlled the Party, Huckabee would be the nominee. McCain is the farthest thing from an Evangelical And I didn't realize that McCain's platform included those things. And that's irrelevant in my book because I voted against that amendment in GA and I don't think sex-ed should be taught in school. It's the parents responsibility to teach their kids this type of stuff. I also think that abstinence programs don't work because every other aspect of society says that it's stupid and you should follow your feelings without having to worry about the consequences.

I actually agree with you regarding much of your view on gay marriage. However, I come to a different conclusion from the agreed upon points. Marriage should not be a government issue. We agree. However, IT IS. Fact. Heterosexual couples enjoy certain legal rights and benefits that gay couples do not. We use the term marriage because it's traditional. The pragmatic fact is that it will not be called something else just to make the case (that you and I both believe is the way it should be) that it should be a religious/personal issue and not governmental. As it will not change, I believe the greater evil is to deny certain people rights that others have on a semantic issue. Whether or not you think it should be like this, calling it marriage does not automatically make it religious. Reality is that in our society there is a civil component to marriage. Call it marriage, call it church marriage vs. state marriage, call it marriage and civil unions, just don't give some people rights that others don't have.

But what I really want to know is: Why are you voting for Obama (I assume you're voting for him)? I can understand not wanting to vote for a Republican at this point but why do you want to vote for the most liberal member of the Senate (based solely on his voting record)?

It's a flawed question. I'm not voting for him based solely on his voting record. I've mentioned my cynicism above. You both know it to be true. I'm a skeptic as well. However, in Barack Obama I've found the first politician that I've ever paid attention to that doesn't seem to play the game in the classic mudslinging do what you must to win way. He's a black man (half, mixed, whatever) that remarkably managed to keep that from being a primary issue. He's of Muslim heritage, and (outside of Kentucky) he's remarkably managed to keep that from being an issue. I believe (call me naive, I was wrong about Hillary winning) that he is genuinely different from all the politicians we're used to. For example, did you see his speech on race after the initial Rev. Wright kerfuffle? John Steward put it best when said, "at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults." It was the first time I've ever been addressed regarding a serious issue from a national pulpit without any pandering, base appeasing, or really... politics.

I may not be a huge fan of Universal Health Care (though I'm not the rabid opponent you guys are), and I might want taxes to be lowered more than I can reasonably expect from any Democratic candidate. However, in many ways this is still a foreign policy election to me. Iraq may be winding down. Regardless, McCain has been a champion of the Bush plan from the get go, while Obama has been a vocal opponent for as long. As Bush's plan has been mostly proven to be deeply deeply flawed, based on lies and deception, and used to curtail many domestic civil liberties then the fact that 1 candidate said yes and the other said no speaks volumes to me about their judgment. Obama made the right call, and McCain got it wrong. In addition, as strongly as I believe that W has reacted to it almost perfectly wrong, I do believe that there is a serious worldwide conflict between Fundamentalist Islam and the democratic freedoms of Western society that we all value so much. That said, who has a greater chance of actually making a difference in this sphere? Another old, rich, white man with a gun, or a younger, newer, mixed guy with a voice? That's why I'm voting Obama, and happily.