Her Royal Majesty recently granted OIA an audience.  Although there were many topics for discussion, the Queen stated that, as it was tea time, she would speak only on politics and the weather.  The paper quickly dispensed with the latter theme, as her Gracious Majesty asserted that she did not consider meteorology valid science and that she predicted the weather based on an old hip injury.  Under the circumstances and given that the elections were coming up, OIA opted for a political conversation.

OIA: Dread Sovereign, thank you for taking time out from your busy schedule.  Do you have any reservations about discussing politics?
HRM: Of course, as Queen of Scotland and the Out Isles and Empress of All the Russias, we are not able to be so crass as to actually endorse a candidate.  We should be speaking from an unfair advantage were we to do so. Still, with our enormous experience of government—after all, we can actually see Alaska from our moose-hunting lodge in Siberia—it would be a shame if we did not share from our knowledge of the subject.

OIA: Then you believe it is important to have many years in government?
HRM: We believe in education.  The role of a monarch, similarly that of a president, is one for which the individual should prepare, but there is ultimately no substitute for on-the-job experience.  One can, of course, inhabit the Oval Office for years and be blissfully unaware of one’s mistakes and of the woes one has wrought upon the world.

OIA: Since none of the candidates is a sitting president, what sort of experience would you look for in a candidate?
HRM: Politicians are invariably lawyers or trained in the law.  This is probably essential for something or other, but we believe aspiring politicians should not neglect formal training in the social graces, poise, oratory, and foreign languages, both classical and modern.  It does not hurt to have a background in history, too.  Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.  Like assuming that a Republican administration does not betoken economic ruin.

OIA: Any particular talents or skills?
HRM: Good eyesight.  One should be able to see Russia from Alaska.

OIA: Majesty, to what do you attribute your keen political insight?
HRM: The aforementioned meteorological response to an old hip injury.  It galls us when there is even the slightest chance of rain, also when we are subjected to smoke, mirrors, bread, circuses, and hot air.

OIA: Circuses?
HRM: Clowns, specifically.

OIA: And how is the royal health this political season?
HRM: Variable.  From one encampment there is fresh air, sunshine, and hope.  From the other there is a continuous flow of warm, dry air, a Föhn or a scirocco or possibly a persistent Santa Ana.  The royal hip has given us trouble these last eight years; a twinge, you know.

OIA: What do you think of John McCain’s economic plan?
HRM: We are most incredibly sorry; the twinge, you know.  You were saying?

OIA: The McCain economic plan, do you have any thoughts on that?
HRM: Naturally, as an astute student of economics, we try to remain on top of these things.  Unfortunately, reading fourteen languages and trying to stay on top of politics, statistics, law, and the latest in moose field fashions, we have little time to review the heavy tomes the McCain people have produced.  Happily there isn’t anything new there, so we feel we are still in the loop.

OIA: Of course, even though you cannot endorse a candidate, Your Highness, one would think, based on your statements about experience, that you would naturally prefer an elder statesman.
HRM: If one were in the habit of thinking, one might come to a different conclusion.  Mr McCain’s longevity in Congress does not preserve a record of progressive politics, despite his reputation as a maverick.  If a maverick votes 95% of the time with the president, then we must assume it is a very docile creature.  We, unlike certain mavericks, are an astute student of history, and Mr McCain does not generally impress us. 

We believed, in our royal innocence, that the candidate showed real moxie in challenging his party and the president over the policy of using torture.  Mr McCain’s own experience as a prisoner of war put him in a unique—and compelling—position; his was a weighty voice of dissent.  Unfortunately, in order to obtain the support of the Republican Party, he completely embraced the occupation of Iraq and became the leading proponent of the surge. If one were in the habit of repeating party sound-bites, this would sound like flip-flopping. Mr McCain touts the surge as successful, but really ‘surge’ is another word for ‘escalation.’  The McCain Doctrine, as John Edwards christened this action, obligates a continued American presence in Iraq for years to come, perhaps a hundred years.  America undertook the war and occupation based on evidence that has been shown to be counterfeit, and Iraq would now like America to leave.

OIA: Do you believe an immediate pullout is a viable option?
HRM: No, we fear America has done too much damage for that.  Still, if Iraq is to be policed by another nation, it would be preferable that that nation were not the invader.  Fish and visitors, you know.
 
OIA: What about John McCain on LGBT issues?
HRM: There’s the rub.  While Mr McCain may not be the egregiously bad Republican on this front, he’s bad enough.  Mostly he’s soft-spoken here and has a somewhat mixed voting record, but it’s quite obvious he doesn’t regard us as people. 
Significantly, he voted against the 2006 Amendment that would have enshrined discrimination into the U.S. Constitution; however, only a year before, he had supported an Arizona initiative to amend that state’s constitution to ban gay marriage.  Mr McCain has flatly stated that he doesn’t want gay marriage to be legal.  Mind, he doesn’t care if we get married privately; he merely opposes any legal recognition—we would add human recognition—of this institution. Nor would he want civil unions to rise to “the status of heterosexual marriage.” 

But look further at Mr McCain’s stance on LGBT adoptions: he stresses the importance of two parents for children and thereby asserts his opposition.  He does not take into account LGBT couples or the idea of second-parent adoptions.  It’s a rather slick dodge for someone who likes to appear down to earth. Moreover, on the subject of gays in the military, Mr McCain repeatedly says that ‘it’ is working.  He has consulted military leaders, and they assure him ‘it’ is working.  The ‘it’ is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which has disastrously led to the ouster of more than ten thousand troops at a cost in excess of $200 million.

OIA: Are you sure of those figures?
HRM: We are an astute student of statistics.  Sometimes it is the only thing that relieves the twinge.

OIA: How is Barack Obama any better on these issues?
HRM: One would be hard-pressed to be much worse on the LGBT front.  To be sure, Mr McCain is not rabidly antigay; he’s rather quiet on our issues.  But that silence is hitched to a dehumanisation of us.  We don’t matter enough to be allowed to marry, we don’t matter enough to be allowed some weak semblance of marriage, and we don’t matter enough to even be sacrificed on the altar of our country. 

While Mr Obama is not leaping up and down to allow us to marry, he has said he will repeal the Defence of Marriage Act, an important step in the right direction.  Furthermore, he has vowed to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which, in terms of steps, is a bold one.

OIA: What did you think of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?
HRM: There was a time we were very fond of Ms Clinton, back when her husband was campaigning for the presidency and she brought the issue of children’s health into the political arena.  Once her husband became president, she was an early casualty to the political machine, when the Democratic Party determined her work on health care reform looked too much like meddling. 

Where she soured for us was when, as a senator, she voted for the invasion of Iraq.  She should have known better, and we fear she voted for her political survival and not in the best interests of the country.  It is important to have a woman president, to have women in strong numbers in both the House and Senate; but what need have we of an army of Margaret Thatchers?  Women who are merely men in dresses are better suited for the stage than for the political arena.

OIA: What are your thoughts on Sarah Palin?
HRM: We must be very careful what we say of Mrs Palin.  Anything slightly critical or porcine is interpreted as sexist.  We should hate to do anything to give anyone of her delicate, moose-dressing constitution the vapours.

OIA: But you must admit that she has enlivened John McCain’s campaign.
HRM: Enlivened it?  Why, she’s brought it sparklers and pom-poms.  It’s as if she baked a pan of brownies and brought them to the Grand Old Party.  We’re sorry.  Again, the twinge.

OIA: Your Majesty is coy.  Does your meteorological hip tell you anything?
HRM: As an astute student of portents and omens, we believe the truth is in a name.  Obama, for example, when spelt backwards, is amabo, Latin for ‘I shall love.’  It is our royal opinion that there is much to be garnered from this parsing of a name.

OIA: And McCain?
HRM: Niaccm.  It is unfamiliar to us.  Perhaps it is Yupik for ‘moose?’

When not granting interviews and opining politically, her Serene Highness responds to e-mail sent to her at HRMQueenJames@aol.com.