Election Day is finally behind us. Frankly, I’m just glad the NJ governor’s race is done – we didn’t quite get to ‘he eats babies’, but the personal attacks grew more harsh as Election Day approached. Anyway, I hope everyone got out and voted for whatever was on the ballot in your respective districts, even if the only race near you was for town dogcatcher. (Are they even actually elected anymore?)

We do this all over again next year. Prepare yourselves.

It’s election time again, and in New Jersey, it’s time to put the memory of Jim “Faaaaaaaaabulous” McGreevey behind us by electing someone new to the position. And, Jersey politics being what they are, the campaign turned negative about 10 seconds after the primarys were over.

Believe it or not, I had actually been looking forward to voting this time out. Astounding, I know, given my utter apathy for the Presidential election one year ago, but the NJ Gubernatorial election seemed different, somehow – possibly because we’ve only had an ‘acting’ governor for the last year and then some, possibly because – initially, at least – the candidates were talking about the issues.

All good things come to an end. Like I said before, the negative ads have been running for weeks now, and it’s starting to get depressing. I fully expect to see this ad run before the week is up:

Note: The following is meant as satire. Names of actual candidates have been removed to keep my ass from getting sued.

(the spot opens with a distorted picture of [Candidate C] against a red background)
[Candidate F] likes to remind us over and over that his opponent, [Candidate C], has voted for tax increases 133 times…
(still frames from [Candidate F]’s commercials)
…and how [Candidate C] is another corrupt New Jersey politician…
(more stills)
…Statements which have been proven false.
(stills from newspapers, etc., refuting claims)
So why is [Candidate F] spreading these lies against [Candidate C]?
(still frame of [Candidate F] against a black background and a giant question mark)
It could be that his tax plan doesn’t stand up to scutiny, or that he’s taken millions in payoffs from the drug companies. But the truth of the matter is that [Candidate F]…
(slo-mo video of a baby)
…eats babies.
(previous image of baby superimposed over a table setting)
Is THIS the type of man we want to send to Trenton?
(image of [Candidate F] with blood dribbling from the corners of his mouth)
[Candidate F] – not on our side. Also, he EATS BABIES.
(Paid for by the Committee to Elect the Guy Who’s Not So Much With the Eating Babies.)

I give it a week.

Contrast this with the Mayoral race in New York City, usually a hotbed of negative advertising – where incumbent Michael Bloomberg hasn’t even mentioned his opponent in his ads, let alone gone 20 city blocks near a negative ad. If I didn’t know Bloomberg was going to absolutely DESTROY Fernando Ferrer, I’d call it refreshing.

Sometimes, you get in the car and turn on the radio, and the absolute perfect song is playing. When I left work at 7 tonight, after a full day of everyone griping about the election, I heard exactly what I needed to hear.

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try, sometimes, you might find
You get what you need.

Calling it down the middle on tonight’s Presidential Debate (nicknamed “The Squabble in Coral Gables” by The Daily Show), here’s writer of “stuff” Peter David, with an honest running commentary.

(Hm. I’ve referenced Terry Nation and Peter David in the same week…how can I fit in a shout-out to D.C. Fontana?)

There’s been quite a bit of controversy on the campus of Syracuse University, generated by an upcoming visit by patriot/blowhard Michael Moore. SU’s choice of speakers has always been interesting and, shall we say, contentious, so Moore isn’t much of a surprise. He’s a hot-button topic right now, independent of his most recent movie – as evidenced by this letter to the Daily Orange from an SU Alumni:

Many years ago, Angela Davis, that radical with obvious anti-American views, was invited to speak on campus. I and many other alums were very voiceful in her selection to speak and showed our distain by NOT making any donations to the university for years to come. She was invited back again last year or the year before and, again we didn’t give. I know SU did suffer from less contributions.

George Criticos ’64
Rochester, New York

While I respect Mr. Criticos’ right to speak his mind, and regardless of what you feel about Mr. Moore, as a fellow SU Alumni I wish Criticos had given his letter to someone to proofread – especially since he calls Moore “…someone who is obviously unintelligent, uneducated, obese, with no gratitude on being an American and who cannot take a criticism like most real people.” Poor writing aside, I’m not sure what Moore being overweight has to do with his opinions, or when he’s ever failed to show gratitude for being an American. After all, he wouldn’t be able to do what he does without the rights afforded by the Constitution.

I also have to take issue with Mr. Criticos’ decision to “boycott” (tm Michelle) the university by not making a contribution (which, I assume, he would normally make annually) simply because Moore has been asked to speak on campus. I remember similar outrage when Hillary Clinton spoke on campus my sophomore (?) year, and when former Senator Alfonse DeMato was asked to speak at the law school graduation. But to withhold alumni funds because you don’t agree with a speaker on campus is the same as saying you don’t agree with the free and open exchange of ideas on campus – and what the hell is a college campus for, if not the free and open exchange of ideas?

Withholding funds isn’t the answer. If Mr. Criticos is unhappy with Mr. Moore speaking on the SU campus, instead of boycotting he should put his money where his mouth is and assemble funding for a second speaker to provide a counterpoint for Mr. Moore. Support debate, don’t suppress it.

Like most of my demographic, I watched Democratic Presidential Candidate and War Hero John Kerry on The Daily Show on Tuesday night. I thought he did ok, given that he’s a politician and not a stand-up comic or actor. But maybe I haven’t been watching enough of Kerry’s other public appearances. Here’s Dana Stevens (aka SurferGirl) from Slate, who argues that Kerry couldn’t handle the twists and turns of Mr. Stewart’s wild ride.

It’s pretty much a given that the Presidential election in November will come down to Dubya and Kerry. (Sure, Nader will be in there, and some Libertarian candidate, and someone from the Silly Party, but let’s face it – they haven’t got a chance.) Some folks take the high road, some (*cough*FOX News*cough*Michael Moore*cough*) take the low. The folks over at JibJab.com try to make light of the two goobers on the ballot. Me? Well, the mini-bumper sticker in the sidebar is about as political as I intend to get this year. My vote, in true “Brewster’s Millions” fashion, is for “none of the above”.

The interesting thing is, after making and posting the “sticker”, I found out that there really is a group trying to get binding NOTA lines placed on ballots – a majority vote for a binding “NOTA” line would trigger a new election. So the “sticker” is now a link.

And that’s as political as I intend to get, at least for now. So, for the moment, “Every two child did, I will”, “YEEEEEEEEEEAH”, “The American people are safer”, “Mars, bitches”, and I’m going to bed.