With no thanks whatever to those in the arrogant news media, useful information is finally coming out about the two major candidates for the presidency.
Those who would vote to elect Barack Obama as president can now see his true roots as a radical, who views the law as a tool to be used for change, rather than as a limitation on conduct:
1. As early as 2000, he was calling in an interview on Public Radio to effect "redistributive change" through activist social organizations, helped by radical judges. (And the radical roots go back even further than that.)
[UPDATE 10/29/2008: More things about his early career as a radical are here, again with no thanks to the big-league journalists who are devoting all their efforts to investigating Governor Palin's new wardrobe. What is it with the liberal news media? The LA Times is refusing to release even a transcript of a video in its possession that reportedly shows Obama at a farewell party for PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, together with the ex-Weatherman couple from Chicago whom he denies he is close to, at which he supposedly toasted Khalidi by offering anti-Israel remarks. The Times, meanwhile, showed no scruples in releasing details of a tape it surreptitiously obtained of a private meeting in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office.] [UPDATE 10/30/2008: There is more on the LA Times's stonewalling here. And of all things---who knew that Obama is actually a blue-blood conservative? (H/T: Little Green Footballs)]
2. While on the Harvard Law Review, he authored a piece that expressed his views on the then-current state of the law with regard to fetal rights, and suggested in closing that "the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born." (Translation for non-lawyers: "the government may well have a right to be more concerned that a fetus with Down's Syndrome be aborted than it does in seeing to it that any particular fetus is born.") (His views on abortion are more radical than any major presidential candidate to run thus far.)
3. He went back on his early promise to run a publicly-financed election campaign, because the limitations imposed were too restrictive. But the real story, completely buried by the media thus far, is how his campaign Website deliberately removed all its credit card verification protections, in order to allow phony donors to violate the limits on campaign contributions from any one individual. This has undoubtedly led to his 2-1 edge in campaign contributions over John McCain, and once again shows a determination to let the law restrict other people, but not him.
At the same time, those who would vote for John McCain have also learned a few things they might wish were not true, even though they are:
1. As one might expect of anyone born into privilege, he is not without some character flaws, chief of which is a tendency to rash decisions and reckless conduct.
2. McCain is unable to formulate a firm and steady message. Instead, he's all over the map with proposals and attacks, and the predictable result is a turnoff of voters who might otherwise be attracted to him.
3. He still waffles on his conservative message, with hints that he has not abandoned his hugely unpopular position on immigration reform, and his history of working arm-in-arm with liberals across the aisle.
While there are fanatics in both parties who would vote for their ticket no matter who was on it, the same tendency that is causing people to question their faith is also causing voters to question the choices they have before them in the current election. Why should we be bound to the candidates selected by the respective parties? Will anything really differ as a result of who is elected President?
As much as such people might want to explore voting for an alternative candidate, come Election Day, they will be marking their ballots, or pulling the lever, or touching the screen, for either the Democrat or the Republican choices. Why is this so? Why is such an acceptance of the miserable status quo a rational response to what the voter has to know by now about what is wrong with each of the candidates?
I submit that the presidential election has come down to a great big game of "Chicken." Two groups of voters, who constitute by far the majority (the second largest group will be those who elect not to vote at all), are literally egging each other on: "Your candidate stinks! I dare you to vote for that candidate of yours! Go ahead---but if you do, then I'm going to vote for ours! So there---that will teach you to vote for a [fill in your epithet of choice]. I can do it, too!"
Sounds childish? It is. Given what we all now know, the rational choice on November 4 should be: "Neither of the above. Go back to the drawing board and give us better choices." Instead, however, we all hold our collective noses and vote, consoling ourselves by saying under our breath: "Maybe it will be better next time." (As for those voters who genuinely believe that their candidate will do what he promises, well, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.)
Just as in a true game of "Chicken", the one who hesitates last gets the dubious chance of going over the cliff. And the one who hesitates first is branded the "chicken". Neither participant thinks to ask if there are any other alternatives. Is either of them any better off afterward for their having played the game?
So ask yourself: Will we really be any better off if you cast your vote for either of the two major candidates on November 4? If you can't honestly answer that question "Yes", then here is a suggestion. Find a friend who plans to vote for the candidate you would not vote for (it won't be hard, since the electorate is so polarized, and the polls say the race will be tight.) Sit down over a beer or two and discuss the matter rationally. Then agree on either (a) a write-in candidate, such as Bill Cosby (but you had better read this first), or anyone else you manage to settle on; or (b) a pact for each of you to leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank (since your votes would otherwise cancel each other out).
Needless to say, I disagree with the blogger who wrote the post I linked in the previous paragraph. He views such an act as "throwing away your civic privilege." Well I am sorry to have to say it, but I view the Republican and Democratic parties each as having committed that offense first, in taking twenty months to produce the candidates they finally managed to offer us. Accepting their choice is not a civic duty or a "privilege"; it's a surrender to the broken status quo. And it virtually guarantees that we will have more of the same.
(Note to Republicans: if McCain wins, the Democrats will still control Congress, and he will have to "cross the aisles" again to get anything passed.)
(Note to Democrats: If Obama wins, any attempt at a radical agenda might succeed for the first 100 days or so, but then will come the inevitable backlash, and the special interests will eat each other up in the ensuing melee. Obama will not be strong (or experienced) enough to pick a course and stay with it, and Pelosi and Reid will move greedily into the power vacuum his vacillations will create. Think Washington is a jungle now? Just you wait.)
No, my suggestion can't hurt---and whatever happens on November 4, you will be able to congratulate yourself in the mirror the next morning. Think about it.