Election-Related Observations

1.  I think it's funny (in a morbid, ironic sort of way) how a big campaign point for both presidential candidates is the need to unify the country, achieve bipartisanism in Congress and so on, since the country has been divided and fractured for so long, thanks to the Iraq war, post-9/11-ism, and the Bush administration in general.  Yet, I dare say, given all the grassroots campaigning and in-your-face rhetoric I'm getting, the likes of which I have never seen on such a widespread scale, this election has only served to deepen the ideological faultlines that each candidate says they can fix.  I suppose you can't blame them personally for this; in an event as important and polemic as a presidential election, it's probably a foregone conclusion that the race will be deeply divisive.  That said, I still think it's ironic, and I have a hard time seeing, given the extreme divisiveness all around, how either candidate will be able to reach out to those who didn't vote for him during the next 4 years and actually achieve bipartisanism.  I originally decided to base my vote on who I thought was most capable of that.  Sadly, I'm starting to think it's impossible.

2.  Dear President Obama,

In your law professor days, you criticized the Supreme Court in decisions such as Dandridge v. Williams and San Antonio School Board v. Rodriguez, in which the court declined to extend strict scrutiny review along economic lines, and established a textualist mode of determining what qualified as a "fundamental right."  Your comments, if I remember correctly, were to the effect that the Supreme Court unforunately failed to consider a paradigm which would mandate a redistribution of wealth.  For example, if Rodriguez had established a fundamental right to education, the law in question would have been a violation of equal protection and Texas would be forced to raise taxes or redistribute wealth from richer school districts to poorer ones to achieve economic equality between school districts.  This concievably opens the door for the christening of other "fundamental rights" such as food, shelter, etc. which would need to be provided for by the state.  I fail to see how this is not a completely socialist argument.  Is a vote for you, then, a vote for a socialist approach?  Or can I rest easy knowing that President Obama is more practical than, and not as extreme as, Law Professor Obama?

Regards,

Todd

3.  It's been almost a year, three prime-time debates, and countless news stories, but I still don't know where John McCain stands on any issue besides gay marriage and abortion.  What's his energy plan?  What's that, reduce our dependence on foreign oil?  Well how? Give me some sticking points, man!  Don't douse me with campaign trail rhetoric and expect me to eat the lines you're feeding me blindly.  At least Obama was a little more specific!  Does McCain even have an energy plan?  When are we getting out of Iraq?  Did you choose Sarah Palin as your VP just to take the spotlight off yourself and your vague campaign promises?  

4.  Speaking of abortion and gay marriage, I don't know why anybody cares about how a candidate feels about those issues.  Marisa (my fiancee) says it's a good indicator of a candidate's moral compass, how he feels about the sanctity of life, his conception of family, etc.  That's true, and I know a lot of people base their voting decisions on who they're morally aligned with.  So I can see the value in addressing it.  That said, a president is effectively powerless to stop gay marriage (or legalize it) because at this point it's a matter of state marriage law, and each state is left to decide the question.  From there it goes to the judiciary branch, if it reaches anywhere into the federal realm.  It's not like the president can wave a wand and *poof* gay marriage is legal or illegal.  As far as abortion goes, the same idea applies.  Roe v. Wade merely set restrictions on when a state may impose restrictions on abortion (during the third trimester only, for those of you keeping score at home).  A president cannot legalize abortion (or criminalize it) and even if he could lobby the legislature to pass such a law, it would almost surely be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds.  

5.  Is it bad that I don't want to vote because I have serious reservations about each candidate?  If you offered me a three-course meal at some ritzy restaurant, and the choices came down to snail excrement in a white wine sauce or mad cow cutlets and asparagus, could you blame me for just walking out of the restaurant to go to McDonalds?  I have a civic duty to vote, I suppose, so maybe the analogy is inapposite in that sense, but how can I endorse either candidate at this point?  I don't feel like I can in good faith.  Maybe I'll just write in Ron Paul or something, get out of it that way.