On The Other Hand…

…when I do vote for Obama, here’s part of why I’ll be gagging and probably huddled in my shower hoping to wash the stink away and why I can’t bring myself to actually endorse him:

What’s wrong with that? Well, where do I even begin? But I think TokenLibertarianGirl explains just why that’s such a horrible ad:

My friend Typhonblue has an even more pithy response:

Yeah. Someone please make it stop. November 7 cannot come fast enough for me.

By the way, if anyone cares, Lena Dunham was old enough to have voted for the first time in 2004. But I guess John Kerry wasn’t sexy enough for her.

  • ArnoldHarris

    Dean,

    You are sounding like one seriously conflicted dude, in connection with this presidential election. Inasmuch as both sets of candidates seemingly cause you to upchuck your keyboard, if not your breakfast as well, why are you bothering to vote at all?

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  • http://www.jaeddy.com John Eddy

    Seconded.

    Seriously, skip the President, or just vote for yourself. Fill out the rest because your semi-rambling, but very astute post about why we should vote is spot-on.

  • Scott

    I’ve refrained from commenting on why Lena Dunham’s ad is so terribly bad since I’m a near-middle age male and no one cares what I think especially about The Politics of Lady Parts.

  • maggie – labrat

    This is by far the creepiest “pro-Obama” video I’ve seen to date! Who the hell thought this was a good idea? 100X worse than the school kids 4 yrs ago.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwlW4lx6TTo&feature=player_embedded

    And Moore’s moveon ad makes Ann Coulter’s retard remark pretty damned civilized in comparison.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Honestly? Writing in Mickey Mouse is a good probability for me at this point. As much as I like Gary Johnson, I can’t vote for him either, and the Greens are completely out of the question.

    What’s it like to genuinely loathe everybody running? There’s bemused tolerance, there’s liking one guy more than the other, and then there’s wanting to upchuck when you think about every single person at the top of the ticket. That’s never really happened to me before, it’s kind of sick-making.

    I have to vote for the lower offices though. There’s some ballot initiatives I have to vote on, and two judges in particular I want to see elected.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    By the way, I’m caught between amusement and annoyance at the fact that I’ve got Facebook friends calling me a right wing talking point spewing Sean Hannity clone and over here I get shit for being the liberal wanker. Oy, November 7, please come soon, please please. Killing me.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    I have to vote for the lower offices though.

    In the 2008 election I voted for the lower offices only. The McCain-Feingold bill was a piece crap that turned me off.

    I still vote every election, but only because I now have absentee ballots sent to me. Otherwise I would no longer vote. The system is broken, maybe beyond repair.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I am entirely serious when I say we need a Constitutional Convention.

    Structurally, the Constitution is broken. Period. It lasted a shockingly long period of time, much longer than any of the framers imagined. It was deeply flawed from day 1 but had so much good stuff in it that it worked.

    It no longer does. Reverence for the past be damned: it’s time not just for an amendment, but an overhaul.

  • Scott

    Dean,

    What would you change and why?

    I’d get rid of the “General Welfare” term as its been perverted and abused far away from its oiginal meaning.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I would get rid of the Presidency or reduce it to a ceremonial office, and I would abolish the Senate. I would also abolish first-past-the-post voting, and I would make gerrymandering unConstitutional, requiring districts to be done using a mathematical model based purely on population, making it illegal to even look at voting patterns before drawing up a district, and make redistricting subject to voter ratification at the state level. I would also require that elections be called at non-fixed intervals somewhat along the lines of how they do it in Australia or Canada, and I’d require every campaign ad to include a list of every donation source that adds up to more than 0.5% of total donations. (I have abandoned the notion that money doesn’t influence elections; it doesn’t buy votes, but it does buy influence on politicians, and that’s way more important.)

      Yes, I’m talking about systemic, fundamental change to the core structure. If the Constitution is our operating system, I want to rewrite the kernel and the bootstrap process both.

  • http://www.jaeddy.com John Eddy

    You will get the EU Constitution, probably worse. Better to dissolve the Union.

    Seriously.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    I am entirely serious when I say we need a Constitutional Convention.

    Thoughts like that really scare the crap out of me. Indeed worse than the EU Constitution. The progressives would have it so full of equal this and equal that it would end up a farce. May as well elect a few Michael Moores.

    As the late Dean’s World commenter Steven Malcolm Anderson often said: “Free men and women are not equal, and equal men and women are not free.”

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    Dean,

    How about a new post on “Do we need a new Constitutional Convention.”

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    You wouldn’t get the EU at all, because almost none of what I described is how the EU operates.

    Something a whole lot like Australia is what you’d get.

  • http://www.jaeddy.com John Eddy

    First, you cannot dictate what a Constitutional Convention will produce (see 1787 if you’re unclear on this point). The Convention can and will produce whatever the hell it wants to and if we’re lucky, submit it to the states for ratification, though they may also change the rules for ratification because… they are the Constitutional Convention and they can do whatever they want so long as somebody gets to vote on it.

    So you can tell the Constitutional Convention what you want them to do, and they can ignore you and do whatever the people filling their pockets with gold and yammering in their ears tell them to.

    That’s why a Constitutional Convention an extremely bad, extremely foolish idea.

    Better to dissolve the Union. Seriously.

  • Dishman

    Dean,

    I suspect you’re stuck on “There has to be a way”.

    Not all problem-spaces have solutions. Sometimes the only thing you can do is to redefine the problem-space until you find one that has a solution.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Dissolving the Union would likely have the same net effect as rewriting the Constitution, because states will wind up creating joint federations/confederations with overarching Constitutional structures between them anyway.

    I’ll post a front page article. But I would point out that our Constitution is older than every other currently operating in the world. That alone doesn’t make it bad, but I notice quite a lot of countries have survived rewriting their Constitutions in the last century and not dissolved into utter chaos.

  • http://www.jaeddy.com John Eddy

    A Constitutional Convention will effectively dissolve the Union.