Monday, April 21, 2008

The Candidate Who Came to Dinner

The same blizzard that welcomed John F. Kennedy to our highest office welcomed me to this world. At the time, people worried that putting a Catholic in the White House was a huge mistake. Washington would be controlled by Rome, and Kennedy would be nothing more than the Pope’s pawn. Pretty soon we’d all be packing Rosaries and banned from eating meat on Fridays. This silliness amazed me.

I don’t want to be amazed like that anymore. Now we have a woman and an African American running for office, and some people running to cover their ugly, deep-set fears with flimsy excuses. Look deep - if you’re voting against (or for) someone simply because of gender or race, you need therapy, not a voting booth.

Honestly, I don’t want to know what a candidate does at home, how bad a bowler he is, or whether she can kick back shots with the guys. At what point do we finally say, “I don’t care if the next President of the United States is a transgender mandrill – somebody give me a shot at a decent life?”

The candidates confuse the issue more by pandering to our base commonality. “I’m one of you,” they purr. No, you’re not, and we’re happy about that. We could never survive the rat race that is Washington. We’re hoping one of you can.

Sometimes private choices give you a peek at what a candidate's future intentions might be. For instance, did they marry for money? If that’s the case, maybe that candidate will marry big oil. Gas is quickly approaching $4 a gallon – at what price ignorance? But at least he’s white, you may think, if not say. If we decide one of the most critical elections using racist or sexist bias, we deserve what we get. If we can’t look beyond looks, we are most certainly doomed.

Has it really come down to which is less worse – a woman in the White House, or a black man in the White House? Are we really that shallow? This is the part where you yell, ‘No!’ Unless, of course, you're uncomfortable with a woman telling you what to do. If that's the case, I hope you enjoy cereal for dinner, because after paying for gas, that's about all you'll be able to afford.

False issues cloud the real deal like so many messy snowflakes. But I will tell you one thing -this candidate WILL be coming to dinner. The next President will decide how often you have a nice steak, or have to settle for a cheaper cut of meat. Picking the President based on primordial fears may be the cut that gives you indigestion.

Choose wisely– you may have to eat your vote. And that's no bologna.


Anonymous said...

I vote for Annie!

Shania said...

Hear! Hear! Well said.

Mr. Completely said...

Have you checked the price of cereal lately?

Don't get me started.

Rock on, Annie. You go, girl.

ScottMGS said...

For me, it seems that it usually comes down to "which is less worse" and it's very frustrating. I've been voting since 1976 and there have been far too few opportunities to vote for someone I really wanted to be in a particular office (and, even then, he or she always lost). You might think I'd be used to that by now but I'm not.


Several months ago I was quite happy because, while I'm not a registered Democrat, I could have been happy with any of the three front runners. I liked Edwards, Obama, and Clinton well enough but Edwards dropped out in the first month of primaries and caucuses and then Clinton has gotten so negative and Obama is looking less likely to be able to win against McCain (partially because of Clinton's negative campaign).


Annie said...

I hear you, Scott. Clinton and Obama are beating each other up while McCain naps with his wife's money. We have to pick the candidate (and crew) most likely to thrive in Washington, an ugly concept in itself. Someone who can stand up to big oil and give us our lives back.

VP81955 said...

When Al Smith, a Catholic, ran for president in 1928, there were claims that if he were elected, there would be a secret tunnel constructed between the White House and the Vatican. (Would've been a heckuva construction project.)