It has begun (officially)

I guess that today, the first round of the neverending election has officially taken place. Since the 2008 campaign has been waging since at least 2004, perhaps even 2000 (I’ve been convinced since then that Hillary Clinton was being primed as the ‘08 candidate since her husband’s last couple years in office; thus the Senate bid). Maybe, just maybe, if we can just get through the obnoxiousness of this for one more year–wait, wait… only 11 more months, thank goodness–we’ll actually have it behind us. I’d also adore to have all the shrillness of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton perpetual debates behind us for good, too. (Though I’ll admit that there’s one more George Bush I’d like to see considered nationally at some point in the future… )

One politico asks: “Why is the expected Republican turnout lower than in 2000, when it was, in my humble opinion, a weaker field?” I think it’s because this election has drained most of the enthusiasm out of its potential base because of its very extendedness. Besides, as the incumbent party, you don’t have the “get our guys in there!” motivation that you do when you’ve been the excluded party for the last 8 years. In 2000, Republicans were excited (much as Democrats are in 2008) that there was actually a real prospect of getting “their guy” into the top spot… and it showed through the whole election cycle. Maintaining the status quo is never as exciting a prospect as upsetting it… IMHO.

As an aside, is there a word that means “person intensely interested in politics”? I thought I’d seen “politico” used in a similar context to “techie” or “foodie / gourmand / gourmet” or “cinephile” or “balletomane“, but it appears to be traditionally defined as “a politician”. So what do you call a connoiseur of politics?

Ooooh–an aside to my aside–check out this cool word: logomachy, pronounced “le-GOM-uh-kee” and meaning “argument about words”. Sorry. Sometimes my word-loving nature gets a trifle out of hand. But who knew that there was a specific word for “an argument about semantics”? Because I’m always saying that about certain types of discussions, particularly in theological and philosophical realms. Now I can say snootily, “Let’s not sidetrack into logomachy,” when I get annoyed by such discussions… (Which will, I’m sure, make me lots of friends.)

Oh, but I had a point here, didn’t I? (Back when I taught high school, I was one of those teachers sadly susceptible to being diverted down rabbit trails by my students, given that it was an inquiry that I thought was interesting…)

Anyway, I am having a hard time maintaining interest in this year’s election… No, that’s not accurate. To put it more truthfully, I have long since passed the point of non-interest in the election; I have even long since passed the point of turning off the news with disgust when it inevitably returns to this tired, over-digested, irritating topic, like a dog to its vomit… I recognize, accept, and attempt to tolerate the need to maintain a free society with free elections and free political discourse, but my patience with the idiocy of the political process as it plays out in the public arena has long since been exhausted. I fear I could never be a politician simply because I’d be so done with the election by the time it rolled around that I’d roll my eyes and give the media attitude any time they asked me another one of the same questions they’d always asked before.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see an intelligent pre-election discourse, including selection of candidates appropriate to run the country? Instead, we get photogenic yes-men (and women) who either have never entertained a real thought or just have learned to conceal it, smalltalking vapidly in an attempt to avoid ever taking a stance for or against any major issue. Ick. And therein lies the heart of my frustration with the neverending 2008 election.

(Hmmm–I’m starting to realize that I’m not a political enthusiast by nature. BTW, half of this is not meant seriously… not completely, anyway!)