Regardless of any sarcastic posts that may or may appear in this space in the next four years, for this one, single moment… I’m happy for Barack Obama and proud of the country. I’m happy for all the people who feel this represents a new stage in the country’s history. And I hope that all the things he promises — a better United States, unity, compromise, an openness in government, and better lives for everyone — happens. Selfishly, I hope this kicks off a huge shift of power in the Republican party to remove the religious maniacs and conservatives in their own little holes.

I’ll end this before cynicism and sarcasm starts to creep in to what I want to be positive congratulatory post. I still believe there are too many people who believe government is the solution, not the problem… and Obama’s government wants to be the solution. The hero worship in the eyes of many people shown during his acceptance speech seem to indicate they’re in agreement. I find that terrifying. But, for now, congratulations President-Elect Obama. You earned it. And congratulations America for probably doing the right thing to heal the divisive wounds in this country. At the very least, I’ve been waiting for a Gen Xer to be in charge, and now one is. Maybe it is, in fact, our time.

And to the Secret Service and God if you’re up there — for the love of all that is good and holy — protect this man.

Obama: Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

This was addressed a bit in a previous post.

As my personal stance on guns is pretty much summed up, in its entirety, in the blurb from McCain’s site — this doesn’t look good for Obama. I’d be willing to listen to a fuller explanation of Obama’s position but, unsurprisingly, you can’t really find it on his campaign site. Because of that, I had to check out his voting record and quotes.

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008) — sure, every locality is different… as long as they’re not banning them or anything.
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008) — oops.
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) — double oops.
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008) — fair enough… although he uses “common sense” on his website without really describing common sense. Common sense is great but is kind of different depending on the individual. For me, “common sense” says equal protection applies to gay people. To others, “common sense” says it doesn’t.
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) — Not really easy to run a store this way? And — why? What? The 2nd gun is going to be the one you use to go on a killing spree?
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007) — Should be ok for everyone who has never committed a crime.
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007) — OK, sure.
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006) — I’m all for keeping guns away from criminals, but I’m sure there are law-abiding folk in the inner city who want to protect themselves from gang members. Why shouldn’t they have that access? You know what would keep people safe from gang activity? Killing gang members.
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004) — Why? Because of the frequency with which criminals use Uzis to rob banks? When’s the last time you heard of a convenience store getting robbed with an army-grade weapon?
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) — No.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005) — No. I fail to see how this is even allowed. It’s not as though the product malfunction. It did what it was designed to do.

People who obey the law don’t use guns to murder people to show how tough they are or to steal things from other people. They use guns for sport and to protect themselves. What Democrats fail to realize, for whatever reason, is that criminals will always have access to weapons. Always. I could very likely post an ad on Craig’s list and have an illegal gun tomorrow. I shouldn’t have to do that. I should be able to easily get permission to both own a gun and carry it with me. Because of bans like the ones that Obama, apparently, supports the criminal on the subway has more of a right to protect himself than I do.

As a strict Constitutionalist I can’t agree with Obama here. There is no explanation he can give me that suffices. If you want to create extra penalties for those who use illegal weapons in commission of a crime — sure, I can do that. But to make it a crime for someone to have a weapon just because he has a weapon? No. Sorry. It’s really nice to say that it’s the police’s job to protect you but they don’t. The police won’t save you from a mugger and won’t save you from a home invasion. Each person should have the right to protect themselves.

Also; for the people who believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect state-militias — and for the aforementioned Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens who can’t find an absolute right to bear arms or believe the Framers wouldn’t want the ability of government regulations restricted — can any of them (or you) tell me why the Framers made nine amendments to protect the rights of the people but apparently made one kinda non-absolute amendment that may or may not have been intended to protect the people? The entirety of the amendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Framers specifically use “the right of the people”. Is there any place in the Constitution where they ambiguously use “the people”?

The answer, of course, is no. The Framers created an amendment that says: “We can’t take the right to bear arms away from you because we may need you to use them to protect the security of the free state some day. In fact, this is so important that we’re putting it in here so some president with a bug up his ass can’t decide to just take them away.” Just because the government doesn’t want to call in their half of the deal anymore doesn’t mean that we’re any less able to take advantage of ours. And, news for you, a good number of gun owners in this country, if it were invaded, would happily join the Militia for the security of the Free State again — shoot things that needed shooting — and then go back to work the next day.

As an aside; can you imagine making this argument about any of the other amendments and how quickly the ACLU Lawyer Ninjas would attack? I mean… picture Stevens’s argument had he made it regarding freedom of the press: [The majority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons press. THAT’S THE WHOLE REASON FOR A BILL OF RIGHTS! THEY’RE RIGHTS!!! NOT SUGGESTIONS!!!!

And, as one-issue voters go… this is a big one.

10-8 round for me. (3-1, McCain).

The Supreme Court correctly ruled on the DC gun ban, calling it unconstitutional based on the text of the 2nd Amendment. The majority decided that the historical narrative both preceding and following the amendment indicated the founders did not intend guns to be regulated.

Writing dissents were both John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer.

Stevens said the majority: would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.

and Breyer: In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.

Stevens is flat out and disturbingly wrong. He assumes that the framers of the Constitution wanted the ability to regulate every little bit of people’s lives. They didn’t. They had just come from a government where the monarch regulated every little bit of the people’s lives. They wanted the people to be in control of the government, not vice versa. They created 10 guarantees of people’s rights that the government could never and should never be taken away. This bastardized, bloated government that we’ve turned in to isn’t what they wanted. I believe they’d be horrified if they knew we were talking about socializing health care. Clinton’s appointees forget that. It is completely and totally outlined in Stevens’s quote. They didn’t want the state to regulate people’s access to weapons because they realized that law-abiding people don’t just go out and kill people when they feel like it.

Breyer, on the other hand, presumes there is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden, urban areas. Why? What is hard to understand about the line: the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What’s the gotcha in that line? And why single out urban areas? Isn’t urban areas where you most need people to be able to protect themselves? Are people in inner cities going to somehow not be able to get illegal guns? Could this be a gentle form of liberal “we know better” racism? I’m going to go ahead and say yes.

Of the three justices who voted with the minority, two were appointed by Bill Clinton, one by Gerald Ford, and one by George HW Bush. Of the majority, two were appointed by George W Bush, two by Ronald Reagan’s handlers, and one by Bush 1. With Gerald Ford’s appointee approaching 90 (and there should be an age limit on justices), I think that the new president will quickly have a Supreme Court appointee. For everything bad you can say about the Republicans (a lot, I admit), their Justices do still stick to the Republican ideal of small government and stricter interpretation of the Constitution. I like that. Obama would appoint a person who would have voted with the minority in this case. I don’t like that. Democratic nominees have a tendency to increase the function of government and erode property rights. Republican nominees tend to do the opposite.

And, elected officials do have the tools to regulate civilian uses of weapons: they’re called murder laws.

Point: McCain (1-1 McCain).

Obama: Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

McCain believes that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided. I agree with him on that. Individual states should have the right to decide their own course in regards to abortion. It is not mentioned in the Constitution and, therefore, should fall to the Tenth Amendment and be decided by state.

That said, the idea of “amending the constitution” to protect the unborn is one of the more retarded things I’ve ever heard. And, frankly, no… the government should have no say in what is, at the end of the day, a personal and moral decision that’s none of their business. I don’t like abortion. I think it’s tremendously sad. I also think it’s tremendously personal and shouldn’t be legislated by people so far out of touch with reality that they do things like rename French fries into Freedom fries.

But yes, it’s an excellent idea to force people to have unwanted children. It really helps to end the cycle of poverty. At some point, it would be nice if Republicans would pull their head out of the sand in this issue. The idea of teaching abstinence in school is great. On the other hand, it’s pretty much putting your hands over your ears and yelling “NOTHING’S WRONG NOTHING’S WRONG NOTHING’S WRONG”.

That said, I can’t agree with McCain on this because he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned as a path to ending abortions nationwide. This is stupid and will never happen. It’s also one of the more brilliant “single-issue voters” things they have at their disposal. Next up: the other one.

Point: Obama (1-0, Barack)

Some important things to note before we get in to this:

1) I’m notoriously libertarian about almost everything. I can’t call myself a true libertarian because those people are f*cking crazy.

2) I am Generation X… which means I’m cynical about the function of the government and pretty much have joined the “it doesn’t matter who wins, both candidates are out for themselves and for power and will do whatever the Illumnati tell them” club. I’ve realized that the Boomers are going to hold power forever and that by the time they leave, power will have skipped GenX and gone right to GenY.

As part of that cynicism, I’ve accepted the fact that the pissing contest between the Republicans and Democrats and the people who sell hate will probably end up collapsing the system. The 24-hour news cycle and hate-sale business has murdered the idea of compromise and where no idea, even if it’s good, can be accomplished. Social Security is going to collapse. It is. When I’m of age, it will be gone. A legitimate idea to fix the problem was destroyed by Democrats because they didn’t come up with it. I believe this because no one can possibly believe that a system which will eventually see Generation X trying to support the Boomers will hold up when coupled with a system of government jobs (like the Post Office, teachers, and railroad workers) where people can retire with full benefits at 55.

3) I’m pretty sure that most of Frodo Kucinich’s articles of impeachment are hogsh*t and will hurt Obama more than help him.

4) I don’t vote based on social issues because social issues will tend to move left by themselves regardless of who’s in charge. This has been the trend in the 200-odd years this country has been around and I have no reason to believe that will change under the current Constitution.

5) I believe that the government loves the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration because it distracts the masses from the fact China owns our country.

6) I don’t believe that judges who are declaring marriage laws unconstitutional and are requiring the government to allow prisoners some sort of judicial review are “activist judges.” I do believe they have simply read the fourteenth amendment and realize what it actually means. Specifically, this bit — nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws — which seems really straightforward.

7) I believe Lindsay Graham should be removed from office based on his idea that the Constitution should be amended to suspend Habeus Corpus because of the Supreme Court’s (correct) ruling that prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to judicial review of their cases.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to pick random issues off each candidate’s site and decide who I agree with more. I’ll keep a running total until it gets too serious.

Important note: I live in New York. My vote does not matter in the slightest.

If I could just remember where I’d heard all that before.

Y’see, I heard this entire campaign strategy in 2000. I was still living upstate at the time and someone had decided that she wanted to get in to politics. She then proceeded to descend on a foolish state who had a weak Republican candidate running for senate. She bought a million dollar home in Chappaqua and was suddenly New York through and through. She was a Yankee fan. She was a Giant fan. She was just one of us. To solidify her position, she went on a “listening tour” through Upstate New York. She went through Albany, Syracuse, Schenectady, Troy, Buffalo, and Rochester and told everyone who would listen that she’d help to revitalize upstate. She’d create jobs! She’d revitalize the region! Jobs would return! Forget New York State’s absurd business taxes… I can do it! I feel your pain!!

And the morons in this state drank it up. Twice.

Surprisingly enough, she did nothing of the sort. Upstate’s still dead or dying depending on the region. Albany is run by the same corrupt forces that were running it before I left. Clinton’s suddenly no longer a Yankee fan. The mythical “50,000 jobs” that were going to be created upstate were quickly forgotten. Albany to Buffalo is still full of empty factory. And we were so impressed by this as a state that we re-elected her in 2006.

The only thing that will save Upstate, at this point, is to split into a separate state from downstate. Of the 60 state senators, 40 of them are from the city. How much of a majority is an economic revitalization plan for Buffalo going to grab? Or Albany, for that matter. Upstate has been fighting a losing battle for years and the shrew played on all those fears and hopes… won an election in a weak race… and is now bailing out on the state faster than she came here. The worst thing of all of this: SHE WON THIS STATE IN THE PRIMARY. Not only did she lie to our faces twice but we voted for her again!

What is it about lying politicians that make people forget? I mean… she all but said “vote for me and the streets of upstate will be paved with gold.” She’s not done one thing for Upstate New York. She just sold exactly the same bill of goods to Ohio. Of all the ways to fight her in the known universe, can’t they just play clips of her promising to revitalize upstate New York… and then pan through the empty iron shells of factories in Rochester, Troy, Syracuse, Buffalo, and Utica? Show some speech of her riding through Albany followed by the hell-hole that is the public housing there?

With all the media that we have now, why is there not one news channel that lay into the candidates for things they deserve to laid into for? Why does EVERYTHING have to be us vs. them partisan? Why does NO STATION take Clinton’s/Obama’s tax plan and put numbers up? If you make X to Y, you are currently in this bracket… the proposed tax plans would put you in this one. Why do no stations mention that the only thing Clinton has really successfully pushed for in the senate is getting post offices named for certain people? Why are we OK with candidates picking and choosing their own questions in interviews? Why does no one ask her “you said you were going to do this in New York and it didn’t happen… why?” Why is no one asking the Democratic candidates how they are planning to pay for their health care plans?

If anything, this election is depressing me more than any of the previous elections. Because, now, we’ve reached a point where even good ideas are destroyed and knocked down on the basis of partisan politics. Bush has not been the greatest president of all time (obviously) but he was right in that we needed torte reform and social security overhaul. Both good ideas that were brought down by politics. I hate this country’s political process and the media, instead of doing what they can to make it better and call out hypocrisy and lies to keep them honest, choose a side and are willing lap dogs to their chosen candidate. It’s sickening.

And we’ll be left with the government the majority deserves. Good luck with that.

Your standard guy at OTB is over 40. He wears a jacket despite the temperature outside. Since you can’t smoke in OTB anymore, most of these guys have unlit cigarettes or cigars… and thank GOD my state has passed legislation to help keep these guys alive longer. Normally, they are surrounded by piles of programs and dead tickets. If you take more than four seconds to place your bet (Track, Race, Amount, Bet Type, Horse Number – ie: 4th at Saratoga, $5 Exacta Box on 2,3) they will grumble and call you the old guy version of NOOB. This is usually “rookie” or “amateur.” Normally, I take as little time as possible in OTB and clear out of there before someone realizes I don’t belong and decides to sacrifice me to some dark equine god.

Anyway, the New York Racing Association (NYRA) has been under fire the last few years for various legal infractions. Shocking, I know, since you would normally think a government-backed division of bookies would be nothing if not honorable. As such, they’ve gone into bankruptcy and have been trying various things to get out of it. The newest idea is to put OTB terminals in normal bars. This, according to NYRA, will encourage younger people (ie: distinctly NOT the people outlined above) and women to bet on horses. Schumer, without the standard “think of the children” reference that politicians love so much, instead had to liken college students to children.

Said Chuck: OTB marketing to the young in a bar setting is just the same as tobacco companies using mascots to sell cigarettes to children,

So remember, folks… A 21-year-old in a bar is STILL not old enough to make their own decisions on whether or not they want to gamble.

No word on whether or not Chuck will push to get Quick Draw terminals taken out of bars which, you know, run a lottery game ever four minutes.

Now, please head back to Washington and continue to make it illegal for me to put money on a football game, but make sure it’s OK for New York to run 20 different types of Lottery games.

Thomas Daniels is a regular contributor to Tailgate Crashers and his own blog.