On Election Day, I vote for the candidates that I feel have earned my vote. Not just for those that I like, or those that I tolerate, but those who genuinely deserve my vote. Sometimes I think people in this country take the right to vote for granted: it’s a very central liberty among the civil liberties we enjoy in this country. If you don’t think so, I invite you to read up on what’s happening in Zimbabwe.

I generally am not a litmus-test voter; I consider a broad range of issues, and can be pragmatic on a number of them, when I evaluate a candidate. However, there are some subjects that I’m not willing to compromise. Civil liberties in general tops that list.

As you know, I’ve blogged extensively on the FISA bill, which looks like it’s going to be passed by Congress tomorrow; my latest post was just this Sunday. This bill is atrocious for a number of reasons; you can click on any of the links in my last post to get a sense of just how bad it is. A number of liberal/progressive individuals and groups collaborated financially to put an ad in The Washington Post today– you can see the ad here. While the ad is a bit text-heavy, it summarizes the issue pretty well, I think.

So what does voting have to do with all this, you ask? Well, although the conventions haven’t taken place yet, both of the two major parties are ready to anoint their candidates: John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain, for all his talk about being a “maverick,” is clearly and firmly in the Republican camp, and I won’t vote for him.

I don’t normally share who I vote for, or which candidates I like. I will say that during the primaries, I was not really enthused by any of the “front-runners,” and my sympathies lay with those who had been preordained by the Corporate Media as “not having a chance.” [note to Corporate Media: they “don’t have a chance” in part because you have excluded them from meaningful coverage, debates, and the like. This is a disservice to voters and the public.]

Now the Democrat’s presumptive candidate [assuming that nothing happens during the convention] is Barack Obama. I’d already pegged him as a “centrist” at best, although I admitted he had a silver tongue. I’d first noticed this way back during the 2004 convention, when he gave a keynote speech. At the time, I was blown away by his rhetoric, and remarked to myself that if we ever had a black president, it’d be him. Now that my prediction is verging on reality, I continue to note his great speaking abilities.

But rhetoric doesn’t do it for me: action does. Anyone can talk the talk, but I’m more interested in those who walk the walk. So far Obama’s walking skills aren’t matching his talk. On FISA, it’s been very disturbing. Last fall, during the primaries, one of his representatives let it be known that “[t]o be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” This was followed up by a December 17, 2007 statement released by his office that stated that “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies…”

Funny what a politician will say during the primaries. Here we are, about to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms, about to let Dictator President Bush and his cronies gummint off the hook for breaking the law, about to make it easier for the gummint to spy on folks at home– and Obama is nowhere to be seen. Oh, sure, he made a couple statements here and there– including this widely reprinted statement a couple weeks ago. But he hasn’t come forward to lead on this issue. He has apparently not bothered to lift a finger when the bill sailed through the House of Representatives recently. I certainly haven’t seen or heard of him using that silver tongue to support Senators Feingold and Dodd in their last stand against this bill.

I’m sorry; I can be pragmatic about a lot of other issues that Obama’s talked about. I can say, “Well, that’s politics.” But on this topic, no. Here’s part of why I’m so against this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

This is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Warrantless wiretapping, indiscriminate widespread collection of all communications, and similar eavesdropping on U.S. citizens is against the law– or at least it was against the law. As a former Con law professor, Obama should know the issues involved here through and through, and know what is at stake with this legislation. The fact that he is willing to let this bill pass (oh, he’ll vote “no” at all the right times, but he won’t vote “no” when it counts, or take a public stand against FISA.) and essentially give in to an unpopular president who has worked hard to undermine our civil liberties speaks volumes. Now is the time to walk the walk, and Obama’s in bed, and his feet aren’t even on the ground.

So what do I do this fall? Do I violate my principles and enable Obama by voting for him? If I do that, it’s a vote that says, “I’m ok with your gutting the Fourth Amendment.” Obama has to earn my vote– why should I let him get away with this?

Do I stand by my principles and not vote for him? Yes, I know I live in a state that is thus far predicted to go for Obama, so it’s relatively “safe” to not vote for him, but it will lower the popular vote. The final count for the popular vote, in this post-2000 era, means a lot more to people in some ways than the electoral college tally does.

I know some people will argue, “No vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.” No, it’s not– no vote for Obama is no vote for Obama– I won’t be voting for McCain. No vote for either one is a vote of no confidence (which is an option I wish was on the ballot!).

I know others will argue, “Obama is all that’s left between us and a radically right-wing Supreme Court.” That may be the case, but Alito and Roberts were appointed to the Supreme Court and sailed through their confirmation hearings at a time when the Democrats certainly had the opportunity to block them. Nope, that argument doesn’t wash with me.

So– come November, it’ll be a dilemma. I’ll certainly vote down ballot, especially with the mean-spirited initiative against gay marriage up for voter consideration. An easy “no” vote there. But will I pick someone to be the President of the United States? For the first time ever in my voting history, it’s doubtful.

If you have any thoughts on this dilemma, please share. I may not agree with your points, but I’ll certainly listen.