Bailout? More like failout.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/11/auto.bailout/index.html

I don’t have a lot of time to dissect this, what with my torts final coming up and all, but I actually laughed aloud when I read about it.

Did anyone else catch the irony of the United Auto Workers’ refusal to drop domestic guaranteed pay rates to parity with the rest of the industry? That was, in large part, the cause of the bailout’s failure in the Senate. I’m so glad to hear that all of those union auto workers won’t be losing their salary level. You know, because they’ll still have jobs at which to make that salary. I’m sure GM, Ford, and Chrysler will still be in perfectly healthy financial shape without that $11B. Right? Those union guys are GENIUSES!

And on the political side, there’s yet more irony. The Republicans were bitching that the bailout proposal didn’t come with enough strings attached, and said bitching sealed the deal (or lack thereof). They seemed to ignore the White House’s warning that without the bailout, they’d likely divert TARP funds to the automakers. Those funds are likely to come without any strings attached whatsoever.

Basically, we’re looking at a clusterfuck of gargantuan proportions. The unions have, by attempting to protect their workers in the least sensible way possible, doomed thousands of them to having no job whatsoever. The government is probably going to step in and barely save the Big Three at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, not really force them to change the core of the idiotic policies that led to their near demise, and set them up for failure again in 10 or 20 or how ever many years until the global economy goes kerplunk again.

God save America from itself.

Congratulations, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama II. You’ve got a hell of a lot of work to do. Don’t screw it up. And remember, that new puppy you promised your daughters will need to be housebroken.

A Democratic Party slate card.

Then on Saturday, a Republican Party slate card.

In these abominable documents were precise directions on how to vote for every single initiative, candidate, and proposition.  “Don’t forget to take this to the polls,” they urged.

How the hell stupid do they think I am?  Are there really sheeple out there that are idiotic enough to take these slate cards hook, line, and sinker, and vote exactly how the party wants them to without even considering what they’re voting for?

My faith in our country’s political system, already close to nonexistent, is quickly turning into outright rejection.  So too goes my reflection on the parties themselves, along with their pigeon-brained hacks who can’t offer anything other than eternally vacuous lapdog yappery at the equally cognitively-challenged hacks on the other side.

It all makes me *so* mad.  One of our duties as citizens, by voting, is to make clear our will.  That duty does not extend to making clear the wills of the Democratic and Republican parties.  I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a United Monkey Loverist.  Throw away those slate cards.  Do NOT vote your party’s line unless you clearly understand each and every specific position that they’re taking.  Even if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool loyalist, use your brain and do the research yourself.  You’d be surprised at what you’ll disagree with.

But as I’ve looked at the actual policy positions of the two more closely, it seems to me that Obama really seems to be pretty far out there. He is no Bill Clinton. And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven’t seen any explanation as to how Obama’spolicies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain’s (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won’t do what he says he’ll do rather than because of what he says he’ll do.

This could not possibly be more accurate.  As I think about it, I fall into the aforementioned libertarians-for-Obama category for precisely the reasons stated.  To me, who he is makes a far more compelling argument for electing him than what he says. His mere act of taking the publicly elected office at the head of our country represents the kind of social liberation politicians could previously only talk about.  The idle stream of empty words dribbling from his lips is irrelevant, and largely no different than the equally banal puffery emanating from his opponent.  They’re both going to continue the statist policies of their respective forbears, and from a wholly philosophical viewpoint, their differences are insignificant.  No matter what, I’m going to keep getting five digits removed from my income to fund governmental incompetence, and proprietary views of morality will still be controlled by legislation.

So, I figure, I might as well vote for the guy who isn’t a) old, b) white, and c) doesn’t come attached to Golly Gee Yabetcha Palin.  Sad is the day that I vote for a president based on something other than than his or her ideology, but it isn’t as if we have any better choices.