"Political Slavery"

Talk about a dark time in American Politics. Off the top of my head, I can name six candidates, of which at least 5 are being taken seriously by someone, somewhere.

You'd think that be a good thing: more parties means more viewpoints being expressed, and it challenges the strangle hold of the two-party system. But instead what it illustrates is that the two parties are just plain evil. (Wow, it's amazing just how far I've swung around in just a couple weeks).

McCain: Formerly the maverick bipartisan independant voice of the Republican party. Now he's been coerced into echoing the administration that he was so starkly contrasted against just a few years ago. McCain sold out. He's McSame now. Like the old ladie's sign said, McCain = Bush.

Obama: Has been making concession after concession to the Right in the past few months. His politics are significantly less liberal now than they were a year ago. Like McCain, he seems to have sold out to big business and the radical Right. When he voted for Telecom immunity, I lost just about all of my respect for him - I see it as condemning evidence of a sell-out.

He's not as far gone as McCain, so it's possible he's still mostly faking it. But just the same, if either Obama or McCain are elected, they'll feel beholden to the Right for putting them in office. Either as President will be far more Conservative then they ever were as Senators.

If I had to chose between them (and only them), bearing in mind the totality of their historical record, I'd chose Obama, for one reason and one reason only: Race. I know, sounds awful. I'd vote for Obama because he's black. Not because a black man is somehow better as President. I don't think that. But because of the impact on the national psyche of having a black man in the white house for 4 to 8 years. Polls consistently show that there's less racism in large cities than in rural areas. I think that's a matter of familiarity - the more time you spend around people who are different from you, the less different they seem. A black man in the White House would noticeably reduce the racism in the country. But does that justify my voting for him because of his race? One act of racism to fight long-term racism? Talk about the lesser evil...

(Okay, maybe there's two reasons I'd vote for Obama over McCain. There'll be an incrementally larger change in political appointees under Obama than under McCain. McCain would likely leave more Bush-flunkies in position. Obama, even if he appoints people just as corrupt, would at least be appointing new corrupt individuals. There'd be a several month learning curve as they figure out the structure and system, during which time the betrayal of the American people would be slowed or impeded by inexperience.)

(Okay, there's a third reason I'd vote for Obama over McCain. This one's even worse than the "cause he's black" statement. The third issue is age. McCain's getting up there, and his recent flip-flopping and misstatements could possibly have as much to do with senility as they do with just not knowing the facts or selling out. He could be losing it. Oh, and by the way, I'm not worried about McCain dying in office. Or rather, I think his dying of old age in office is about as likely as Obama being assassinated by some dumb racist hick, so they balance out.

Luckily, there's other options than those two big parties. Even sitting Republican Congressman Ron Paul has stated he can't force himself to vote for McCain. He calls McCain and Obama both Republicrats, and encourages people to vote third party this year.

Who are those third-party candidates?

Cynthia McKinney: Cynthia is a former Democrat congresswoman who left that party after the leadership of the Democrats failed to hold Bush accountable and essentially became accomplices after the fact to the invasion of Iraq and the usurpation of domestic power by the Executive branch. She's running as the Green Party nominee, so she's probably got the most sane environmental policy of any candidate currently running. Plus, she's a black woman, so if I put any credence to my familiarization (anti-bigotization) effect theory, then it's one more small reason to vote for her. She's a true radical, and remained it in the House. Congressional floor rules required women to wear skirts, and she showed up for the job in slacks. In '91 she spoke out against Gulf War I. In 2001 she introduced a bill that would have stopped our militaries use of Depleted Uranium ammuntion. She's publicly stated that she believes our government is hiding information regarding official complicity in 9/11.
But on the other hand, her father seems to be an antisemite, claiming "J-E-W-S" conspired and "bought" the primary that cost her the democrat nomination and dropped her from the House.

My mom is certainly not the bigot my grandfather was, and prior to this blog I've never really repudiated my grandpa's words, so I could see where she'd stay silent on that. Yet at the same time, it's something that makes me a tiny bit nervous. Just to be safe, I'm gonna look at other candidates.

Bob Barr is a former Republican congressman who left that party over disagreements involving privacy rights and constitutionality in the wake of 9/11. He wants to reduce government spending and protect our civil liberties. He values privacy rights and state rights over federal power.
But at the same time, I have several issues with him. As a congressman in the 90s he voted against gay marriage, voted against medical marijuana, frequently spoke (and voted) in support of the drug war, and proposed that the military should no longer recognize Wicca as a religion. It's hard for me to tell if he's really Libertarian, or just pissed off at the current administration. In the 70s he worked for the CIA, so it's possible that he's actually just really good at being deceptive. He was a major force pushing for the Clinton impeachment, yet he'd once licked whipped cream off the breasts of two women in public prior to that impeachment. He's a strange fellow.

Ralph Nader: Nader is running this year, despite not having the Green Party nomination. He's independant. His issues / platforms are here. I like Nader, I always have. He's got fire and gumption and has done great work. If you've ever not died in a car wreck, you probably have Nader to thank for that - he's the man behind the 1966 National Traffic and Safety Act.
But some times, all that stubborn Integrity of his can be a pain in the neck. While I don't think he cost Gore the 2000 election - thieving election riggers and paid-off justices did that - he certainly missed multiple opportunities to accomplish more via that election. Michael Moore had tried to negotiate a deal between Nader and Gore, where Nader would have dropped out and endorsed Gore in exchange for Gore (who was already interested in environmental issues) putting the Green agenda into his campaign platform.
Nader refused. Is that commendable, or just sad? At the time, I thought he was sticking to his principles and refusing to play political games. But now that I see he's running against the Green party that he himself do so much to found, I have to wonder what the heck his problem is. Recently, Nader's got me puzzled. He rightly asserts that

"liberals and Democrats who will vote for Sen. Barack Obama as the 'least worst candidate' are actually trapped in "political slavery."

Via RAW:

"What is your answer to people, including myself, who believe that the votes you get will take away from the Democratic party and ensure McCain wins?" asked the woman during Nader's Q&A with the press. "People who say that a vote for you is a vote for McCain."

Nader grew tense, and his response to the woman was abrupt. "Madam, do you think I'm a second-class citizen?" he asked.

"I'd like for you to answer my question," said the woman.

"No, because that question implies that somehow I am less equal in running for election than two crooked politicians in Washington," he said. "You are a political bigot, wittingly or unwittingly."

He's dead on, there. If we keep voting for the lesser evil, we'll never get anything better.

But, at the same time, sometimes Nader goes off into the deep end in ways that could be just as damaging as voting for the lesser evil. Here's an example from the RAW story linked above:

In June, Nader drew criticism for commenting that Sen. Obama is trying to "talk white," adding in a filmed interview that his candidacy was appealing to "white guilt."

"I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos," said Nader of Obama. "Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"

...

"Put bluntly, because he's black he must be by definition in Nader's eyes an inherent rebel or at the very least actively challenge the white corporate and political establishment," wrote Alternet's Earl Hutchison. "But that assumes that blacks are instinctive rebels because of their color. Earth to Nader on this one; the likes of blacks from Clarence Thomas to Colin Powell should have long since dispelled that myth. Yet, to even think that blacks should be open racial crusaders is crass, cynical, and even borderline racist."

Yep, that's not gonna win you any popularity contests (which, basically the election is), and it shows a certain disconnect from reality. While I'll admit to being slightly more likely to vote for Obama because he's black, and I generally vote for the most liberal candidate, I certainly wouldn't insist that someone be or vote liberal because they're black.

Jake Roth: Well, then there's this guy. He's an anarchist, and a weirdo. I'd consider voting for him, since I know him, but he's actually asked me to not vote for him. In fact, he advocates not voting. He's also not on the ballot in Washington. If he's elected, he'll tear down the government from within. As a beneficiary of a government funding program that removed my life-threatening tumor, I'm not too keen on that. It was a State program, though, and I think Jake's just against the Federal government. I guess I'd better go read up on his platform, to be certain.
One thing I can say for Jake, I trust him more than McCain, Obama, Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, and Barr combined. I also trust him more than any of them individually. (For example, Obama is certainly more trustworthy when not considered in the context of Pelosi, and likewise McCain when not in the context of Bush and Cheney.) If I had to pick a Presidential Candidate to guard my back in a war/revolution/MMORPG, I'd choose Jake Roth. If I had to pick a Presidential Candidate to feed my cats while I was on vacation, I'd choose Jake Roth. If I had to pick a Presidential Candidate's mouthpiece to put on my google page, it'd be Vote Jake - in fact, I didn't have to choose one, but I chose Jake anyway. He may look funny, but he's pretty cool.

EDIT: Since I posted the above, Jake Roth has kindly summarized his political platform (and thus the platform of the Anarcho-American Party).

Well, that's all the Candidates, and I...
Oh, crap, there's more? Are you sure? Ron Paul's not technically running, anymore. Who's this 7th Candidate you're talking about? Chuck Baldwin? Chuck Baldwin?

I've never even heard of this guy...

Chuck Baldwin: Baldwin's the candidate of the Constitution Party. I love the name of the party, but not what it actually stands for. A quick look at the parties "Candidate Comparison" page tells me this is THE Presidential Candidate I'm least likely to vote for. He lists only 3 issues: The 2nd Amendment (he's pro-gun), Abortion (he's Pro-Life), and Veteran's benefits (he's pro-money? pro-medicine? pro-care? pro-veteran, anyway). Considering all the various flaws of Obama and McCain (from civil liberties to corporate/lobbyist influence) if The Constitution Party can't find more pressing issues to criticize those two about than abortion and veteran's medical benefits, they've chosen the wrong name for their political party.
What else can I learn about Chuck Baldwin? He's a Baptist Reverend. He's not one of the Baldwin brothers. He supports reopening the investigation into 9/11. He's a former Republican who broke from his party because he thought Bush and Cheney were too LIBERAL?!? Damn.