Well, the race for the White House has begun in earnest. We're not even halfway through 2007 and the 2008 election season is fully upon us. This should probably surprise me less than it does. At any rate, I would like to take a moment to express my extreme disappointment in Mitt Romney and the comments he made tonight. I will also rant a bit about this election cycle.

I admit, openly expressing my political opinion about a particular candidate gives me pause. There's a fabulous comic that spurs me forward (though I warn you, it makes use of some taboo language). For those of you who prefer your messages without stick figures and Saxon speech, the gist is that you should be careful what you write, because "you never know when a future employer might read it." The basic response is, so be it. My opinions may upset potential employers, but my silence can't impact anyone at all. So, here goes.

By way of background, I am registered to vote as a republican in the State of Arizona. I am also a Latter-day Saint (read: Mormon). I voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 general election. I voted against him in 2004. As a teenager I would proudly tell anyone that I was conservative, republican, right-wing. As an adult, well... it turns out that the political spectrum accomodates truly intellectual ideology but poorly. Some examples:

• I am generally a federalist, but by federalist I don't mean "right-wing." I mean I subscribe to a widely disfavored belief that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have teeth. This generally puts me at odd with so-called liberals who want federally sanctioned abortion, draconian federal obscenity laws, and so forth. But it also puts me at odds with so-called conservatives who want a federal ban on gay marriage, who can't control spending (Senator Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?), and who seem to think that fewer civil liberties equals a better nation.
  
• I am skeptical of the modern application of many intellectual property laws. Some call this anti-business, anti-corporation, anti-innovation. I actually strongly support IP laws that reward creators and foster innovation, but I think it's pretty clear that the system is not presently functioning to that end (patent trolls, anyone?).
  
• I think safety is overrated, especially at the expense of liberty. Both parties like to remind us to "think of the children," warn us about how poor education or televised obscenity or school shootings are going to destroy this once-great country. I would rather my children suffer in a free world than grow up safe in an Orwellian dystopia. That alone puts me well outside the present political spectrum.

Very generally, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" used to stand for the prime values of "liberty" and "equality," respectively. These days, I'm not really sure what they mean. But tonight we got a glimpse of what "conservative" is going to mean for the duration of this election cycle, and folks, it's not pretty.

I admit I had high hopes for Mitt Romney. The former governor of a liberal state who passed something akin to universal health care? You have to admit, that's pretty impressive. Downright meaningful, in fact. And sure, it doesn't hurt my feelings that we're of the same faith, though (if you're not LDS, if you are LDS and you think all good Mormons are republican, or if you are LDS but you haven't spent much time exploring the theological underpinnings of your faith) you may find that Mitt's faith has less impact on his politics than you think. Although I know it is statistically unlikely, I had sort of hoped to see Romney and Obama go head-to-head next year. At the very least, those debates would be much more interesting than the much more likely McCain v. Clinton debacle I fear we're approaching.

But I digress. Tonight Mitt Romney said, "I want [accused terrorists] on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers that they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo." The emphasis is mine.

Bye, Mitt. I can't vote for you. Yes, for that one comment, you are off my list. Indeed, for that one comment, I would say that you are at heart an enemy of liberty and of the most basic human rights as embodied by the Constitution. I try not to be a single-issue voter, but this is too important to screw up. If we capture a terrorist, and we can prove that person is a terrorist beyond a reasonable doubt, we should punish them. But we have absolutely no reasonable incentive to detain indefinitely individuals who may or may not be terrorists. We have absolutely no reasonable incentive to deny legal counsel to individuals simply because they have been labelled a "possible threat." Our court system is functioning and we have nothing to gain by denying these people a fair trial. Yes, even actual terrorists deserve a fair trial. Even--gasp--foreign nationals deserve a fair trial.

Because they are human beings. If they're guilty, as I'm sure at least some of them are, the justice system can take things from there. But what do we gain by denying these people a fair shot? Nothing. What do we lose? The heart and soul of America. This is not a fair trade.

I'm not a huge McCain fan, but he came out strong against torture. I have to respect that, but I don't have to respect a war hawk. Giuliani, well, he's an authoritarian who favors a police state so I'm never impressed with him, no matter how many times he says "9/11." On the other side of the fence we've got Hillary "I will do anything for power" Clinton, one of state censorship's greatest proponents... and Barack Obama.

I admit, I don't know a lot about Barack Obama, except that when he speaks, he makes me smile. His voting record is a toss-up... he voted to reauthorize the inaccurately-named PATRIOT Act, but he voted against extending its wiretapping provisions. He strongly favors equality over liberty, he's a true ideological liberal in that sense where I tend to lean more toward liberty, but the two are not always in opposition. Sadly, Obama wins some approval in large measure because he promulgates ideology while everyone else preaches fear. Republicans want you to fear terrorism and godlessness. Democrats (well, Hillary Clinton democrats) want you to fear guns and video games. Both want you to fear the kind of independent, rational thought that would oust both parties and install a government of the people instead of a government of wealthy special interests (be they corporate or otherwise). I don't agree with everything on Obama's platform, but at least he's got something positive to say. At least he's not warning me about the dangers lurking around every corner.

Before tonight, in my dream scenario of Romney v. Obama, I would have struggled at length and probably cast my lot with the GOP, all the while praying for a rebirth of the party that used to stand for small government and big liberty. What's more, I'd rather not put one party (either one!) in charge of both the White House and the Legislature, if it can be avoided. But I can't vote for someone who chooses apparent safety over natural liberty.

So, Romney's toast, the rest of the republicans hate liberty even if they oppose torture, Clinton is anathema for her stance on video games at least, and Obama has charisma and a firm ideology but is decidedly not a federalist. What's a voter to do?

What are our chances of getting a third-party candidate this time around?