Log in

No account? Create an account
16 August 2007 @ 11:52 am
Why I hate politics, reason #n+3847634763482  
The Logo Network recently held a Q&A sort of thing with many of the candidates running for the Democratic Presidential nomination regarding issues important to the LGBT community. Unsurprisingly, the question of support for gay marriage came up. Unsurprisingly, most of the candidates waffled like their campaigns were sponsored by Eggo.

Meanwhile, ignoring Supreme Court precedent continues to be a source of amusement for Presidential candidates, Congressional lawmakers, and state governors.

Two of the six candidate interviewed support gay marriage. Dennis Kucinich expressly pointed out that it's simply a question of equality. Unfortunately, he then continued to be Dennis Kucinich and rambled on like a fruit loop. Former senator for Alaska Mike Gravel also supported gay marriage, but he faces the uphill climb of being someone no one outside Alaska has ever heard of or cares to hear from, so there you are.

Dems, liberals? Your great hopes for this thing? Barack Obama and Hillary "spare the Rodham, spoil the campaign" Clinton? Big believers in spin. They took a firm stance on not taking firm stances and eloquently avoided being up front or rational in the face of controversy. Obama expressed sympathy with gay people over the whole thing, in which case I hope he remembers to practice what he preaches and only uses the colored restrooms in public buildings. OH WAIT. Hillary Clinton wasn't even willing to come out and express any condolences on spitting in the gay community's face; when asked why she opposed gay marriage, she just flipped the question on its ear, proving that eight years in the White House and a number of years leading up to it milking Arkansas out of its meager resources did indeed teach her to spin words like the dredels she'd also like to claim when she's talking to her "fellow" Jews. John Edwards? Yeah, he claims religious reasons for resisting gay marriage and yet says he doesn't want religion to impose its beliefs on others. Funny, seems like that's exactly what he's doing.

Biggest disappointment to me? Gov. Bill Richardson. Not only does he resist gay marriage, no, he's apparently not bothered to read any scientific literature on homosexuality in the last ten years. He's still convinced it's a choice and that it isn't influenced by or an outright condition of birth. He waffled unsuccessfully, claiming to not be a scientist. Scientists are rarely politicians; a good scientist is too big a believer in truth and reliance on reason to bother with politics. Thing is, a politician doesn't have to be a scientist to have the ability to consult scientists and experts. Maybe the perfect leader is a polymath, maybe not. A good leader at least knows when to consult those more knowledgeable on a topic and to take that advice over his own bullshit opinions.

Sad thing is, we're still going to be stuck with one of these pricks as the only strategically sound candidate to support for the Presidency in 2008. It's them or a Republican, and as a friend once pointed out to me in regards to voting to re-elect Bill Clinton after he lied about supporting gays in the military," "Well, yes, he lied to us, but at least all he'll do is lie and then ignore us."

See why I don't support democracy? You know what happens when you let idiots steer the ship just because there are more idiots than you? You all run aground together.

P.S.: Notice something? Not ONE of the candidates who resist gay marriage could provide a rational reason for why. NOT ONE. I'm still waiting to hear a RATIONAL reason for this stance.
Current Mood: pissed, aka sick and tired
Current Music: Richard Pryor on XM 150
Life Rebooted: studyhopeforyou on August 16th, 2007 05:24 pm (UTC)
Maybe the perfect leader is a polymath, maybe not. A good leader at least knows when to consult those more knowledgeable on a topic and to take that advice over his own bullshit opinions.

I think you took the words right out of my mouth.

And people have knowledge, and then maybe they have wisdom. They aren't the same thing. Someone could have a number of facts at their disposal and know a lot, but not be good at integrating them; not be able to apply both their analytical mind and their sense of compassion at the same time.

I think ego is a big problem. If they're power-hungry and want to get attention (narcissism, anyone?) then they will feed their ego on the ashes of the problems of which they were not only ill-informed -- but refused to listen to the facts even though they were given to them by the experts...
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on August 16th, 2007 05:34 pm (UTC)
These candidates understand the masses and are doing what they think they have to do to sell themselves to 50% +1, which as Dick Cheney rightly pointed out is all that matters to a politician.

The most idealistic I can be about this is that they think that they can do some real good for the people, but only if they can get into office, so they do what they have to do to get in where actions count more than words. In a country with a system where sheer numbers count for more than actual truth, they're right. Understanding this rationally makes me no less disgusted with them; it only makes me wish the whole thing would quietly crumble into dust for being flawed.
Gordon Schumachereleccham on August 17th, 2007 06:47 pm (UTC)
And have the wisdom to realize which people are really experts, and which ones are simply feeding you the line they think you'd most like to hear.

That's a lot of what sunk Maxtor as a company.
The Archangel Robriel: Colbert Flagarchanglrobriel on August 16th, 2007 05:48 pm (UTC)
*nods* You know it's bad when the theoretically progressive party candidates are sidestepping social justice issues like they're radioactive and then responding with "because" as the justification for doing so. "Because we don't want to offend anyone" is not a good enough reason to keep an unjust and unequal system in place.
But then again...I've given up on Democracy as well. It occurred to me when explaining how the system works to Ree, that "majority rule" means that the biggest gob of the bell curve gets the most say in how things are done. That'd be your C students. The unexceptional and under educated sheeple. Do I really want to be yoked to idiots and drug around in service to their agendas anymore? No. I don't. I seriously and severely do not. I don't know what system I'd put in it's place, but it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that this system is totally broken.
I don't want -any- of the choice I'm being offered up by the Dems. Do we really want another four to eight years of Clintonian rule either? Is this our option? Romney or Rodham Clinton? Seriously? Giuliani or Clinton? Talk about the battle of the oily spin-doctors. Eeesh.
Has our national character come down to this? Epic weasel fights?
Phooey, I say to the whole thing.
Ace Lightning: flagacelightning on August 16th, 2007 10:45 pm (UTC)
there's a perfectly "rational" reason why the Democratic candidates support "civil unions", but oppose "gay marriage": they're afraid they'll lose too many votes if they say they're in favor of the latter. (personally, i agree with you that all legal marriages should be "civil unions" - which they already are in many places; the actual "marriage" takes place when the couple sign the document, not when an officiant "pronounces" them married. any couple who want the pageantry of a wedding ceremony as well are free to arrange one. as you know.)

but, dammit, i wanted to like Hillary!

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on August 16th, 2007 11:25 pm (UTC)
Sorry. She's as useless as the rest.
Ace Lightning: flagacelightning on August 17th, 2007 12:48 am (UTC)
the trouble is that they're all - Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal or centrist, black or white or Asian or Hispanic, male or female, straight or gay - politicians. and politicians are the last people in the world who should run things!

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on August 17th, 2007 01:23 am (UTC)
I happen to agree.
Ace Lightning: bunnyrazzacelightning on August 17th, 2007 07:31 am (UTC)
i know it's been said before, but actively wanting to be president should completely disqualify someone from running. back in the 1960s, ultra-conservative intellectual (back then, the terms weren't mutually exclusive) William F. Buckley ran for President; when asked, "If you're elected, what's the first thing you'll do?", he replied, "Demand a recount."

(speaking of intelligent conservatives... i'm beginning to miss Barry Goldwater...)