Gay debates and the ultimate POTUS

The gay debates have just come to a close. Tonight, the Human Rights Campaign and Logo, a gay themed MTV station, put on a gay oriented debate for presidential candidates. It ended up being a Democrats only gathering as all Republican candidates declined the opportunity. I'm not a fan of politicians in general, and most "electable" candidates have concentrated doses of all the qualities I dislike. They strike me as liars who change their answers according to their audience. The increased pace of media coverage and more over the accessibility of said coverage the Internet has driven evens things out and holds individuals accountable for what they say even when they have the illusion of a home field advantage as Mr. Lott and more recently Ms. Coulter have found. What do we get as a result of this total coverage? Candidates who drone on with an innocuous, boring, base-shoring message. The candidate who can repeat him or herself the most times, doesn't anger anyone, looks attractive, and not suffer brain fade at the end of the race wins. Useless.

Tonight, the usual happened. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were strong, charismatic, and didn't say anything to rock the boat. They are taking the tactic of attacking Don't Ask Don't Tell which is totally safe for Republican leaning swing voters and it shows some support for the gay community. The military can't be all too choosey right now. And DADT is really just about the lamest piece of playground legislature available. Kucinich and Gravel (I didn't even know he was running) were honest and open. I'm sure they are viewed as radical although they're really just comfortable with humanity. In my eyes Kucinich is a loon only because he wants non-profit health care. Not because he espouses the notion that love conquers all. And Bill Richardson - one of my favorite politicians prior to tonight - just flopped. I'll have to give him a pass. He's a hard working guy. He has a strong record. I don't know why he performed feebly tonight, but he did.

Perhaps I'm a dreamer. The candidates that try to stick to the middle drive me nuts. I know I see issues as being right or wrong. Good or bad. I'm told that this is an unrealistic ideal (phooey). So candidates that have something on their minds and share it really appeal. Of course, these candidates tend to be viewed as unelectable. I say viewed as because that's all it is. If everyone who said, "I'd vote for so-and-so but so-and-so can't win" actually voted for so-and-so the odds would certainly tip. But even after locating a dark horse, enlightened candidate it's most likely that I won't agree with all of his or her platform. Even candidates who are wonderfully genuine, such as Dennis Kucinich, may not punch all my buttons. Kucinich wants non-profit health care. This drives me crazy. Oh Dennis, I love love, too, but I'm a capitalist. I won't be calling you the morning after so don't come a calling tonight.

In the spirit of the debates (entitled The Visible Vote '08) I'm going to write up my dream candidate.

My dream candidate would be a bastion for reducing government and increasing individual freedoms like Ron Paul almost is (he's against gay marriage and abortion rights. I can't let that go.)

Like Paul and Kucinich my dream candidate would bring focus on the United States and not the United jihadist front. I'm not saying we ignore those who would do us harm, but let's try to focus on defense. Further, as distasteful, immoral, and wrong as terrorists are they are not human rats to be exterminated.

My candidate would be real about personal liberty like Dennis Kucinich. Senator K was the only candidate who handled the gay question perfectly. Really it's one question framed many ways: Do you recognize homosexuals as human beings with inalienable rights? The question is answered in the telling (homosexuals are humans so duh). It's a non-issue. The people who would like it to be an issue - and have created this issue - do so against the rights of others and should, by all constitutional accounts, not be allowed to continue. Seriously, I want to ask why are we still talking about this? Oh yeah. There are a lot of misguided individuals in this country who don't understand what it is to have personal freedoms and how that doesn't only extend to their personal in-group. Unfortunately, many of those misguided individuals appear to have a lot of power.

My dream candidate would answer all questions directly - even ones that put him or her in a bad light. Again, this is something that needs to be put in the forefront. We ask presidential hopefuls a question concerning subject x and they respond with a pat response about subject y. A person can't run a Burger King that way. How do we think they can run a country with that kind of verbal smoke and mirrors?

My dream candidate would be viewed as electable - mostly because the majority of US citizens would embrace this bold leadership style. The majority of US citizens would recognize that personal freedoms are to the benefit of all. A community is made of individuals. That which benefits the individual will benefit a community. One can't ask the individual to sacrifice for the community. That makes no sense. And a community can't sacrifice for an individual since it's all comprised of individuals.

Someday we'll recognize that the "give and take" between the people and the government is just robbing Peter to pay Paul in circles with interest. Until then, I guess we'll just keep throwing darts at the board or worse, pick the person most likely to win.