It's no secret by now that I voted for Scott Brown and the Libertarian Presidential nominee, Gary Johnson (admittedly, I have no idea who Johnson's running-mate was; and admittedly, I had been saying I'd vote for Jill Stein. Oh well). I do think that all the Presidential candidates would have made good presidents, so the outcome is more or less meaningless to me. Contextually Obama is probably best, but the Presidential race never meant much to me. The other races, consistent with my political philosophy and theology, were far more important to me. But of them all, Scott Brown's election to the Senate was the only thing that I dearly hoped for.
Why did/do I care so much about Scott Brown? It's not because he's a Republican. Yes, I am rather frustrated with Massachusetts Democrats right now, but until this election I had never planned to vote for a Republican candidate for anything, despite my Republican registration and Republican/Libertarian ideals. In general, I find Republicans dangerous. Before I go off into a political diatribe, which I don't intend for this post or this blog to ever be, let me get straight to the point: Scott Brown is a good, independent, and thoughtful man... who happens to be a Republican. If we take ourselves seriously when we say that politics needs to tone down, unite the country, and move us forward, then we need to elect as many Scott Brown's as possible so that we have a government filled with politicians willing to break with their party and do the right thing; we do not need more fiercely partisan politicians like Elizabeth Warren. Democrats constantly talked about how Scott Brown would be one more Republican in the Senate. What they failed to mention was that with Elizabeth Warren, even though Democrats may have the votes necessary to do Democrat things in the Senate, the Republicans and everyone else will have no reason to believe that Democrats want to unite the country or do what is good for the country. Scott Brown could have continued to be a model, an inspiration, and a constant thorn in the side of Republicans and Democrats alike to actually think straight.
Ok, now why am I writing all of this on a blog about writing? First of all, it's a blog and I want to know how other bloggers feel: writing whatever nonsense they feel like writing. Secondly, earlier this morning I wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe. I've been accepted by them before and I'm hoping to be accepted again. Obviously the letter is about Scott Brown and the misconceptions that Massachusetts and the nation have about the consequences of the Brown-Warren election. I'm writing this post, then, as a kind of follow-up to some of the posts that have come before so that you can see how writing evolves. In this case we have gone from passionate ideals to various experiences to disappointment and frustration to writing. Throughout this blog, whenever possible, I have tried to carry you along into what I'm writing and what I'm doing (though not too much, so it's not just about me), but here I had a unique opportunity: I was carrying you along without even knowing I was going to write something.
Good news here, too, is that I'm not just blogging about what I'm writing. You don't need to only take my word for it that I've written something. My blog is not the only source of publishing what I think and what I write. The Boston Globe has accepted my little piece (clearly not what it could be, but we do what we can with 200 words or less) and by tomorrow or Sunday you will be able to read a piece of mine that is published by a respectable source.