Tag: decision-2008

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the McCain campaign is pressing on with their advertising taunt that Obama is too much of a celebrity to be a good president. I’m not sure what they are attempting to imply: that to be a successful president, one needs to be unpopular? It is true that both Lincoln and Truman were unpopular during their terms, but other presidents now recognized as good were popular. Certain the current office holder is proof that being unpopular doesn’t make you a good leader.

The first Presidential election I could vote in was the 1980 election (I was 18 in 1978, but there was no presidential election then). In 1980, there was one candidate who really impressed me — so much that I actually voted Republican — Rep. John Anderson. What impressed me about Anderson was that he published a series of clear position papers that described what he was going to do in office in a manner that convinced me his approach was best.

Mr. McCain (and Mr. Obama… as well as Ms. Hilton :-)), that’s what I want to see. I don’t want advertising telling me not to vote for the other guy. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you. Tell me what you propose doing. Tell me why it is the right approach. If you must attack the other candidate, attack their proposals and ideas, and demonstrate why yours are better. Both parts are required. I don’t want to see attacks on fluff. I don’t want to see attacks on personality. I don’t want to see attacks on history — people change and grow and learn, and I don’t want someone hidebound to old ideas in office. Nixon was successful in Foreign Policy because he learned and changed positions. Bush 43 has been unsuccessful because he has been seemingly unable to learn and change.

Translation: I don’t care if Obama is the celebrity of the day, Mr. McCain. Why should I vote for you, not against him?

With the recent Tuesday primaries not giving a clear winner on the Democratic side, voice are chiming again to seat the MI and Fl delegates. Howard Dean of the DNC is against the move, as MI and FL votes for the rules that effectively disqualified their delegates. There’s also increased furor about the superdelegates.

I, for one, don’t want this matter settled before the convention. I, for one, want a convention fight and multiple ballots.

I think there are very good reasons to want multiple ballots and a convention battle, publicly and in-your-face. Having multiple ballots promotes compromise, as on the second ballot delegates feel freer to vote on who they think will be the best candidate. You see a give and take between the candidates in order to woo delegates, perhaps leading to a stronger tickets (including, perhaps, the dream-team ticket, which would be one way to sway delegates). You see party elders using their role properly: as senior sages sharing their experience on what works and what doesn’t. Lastly, you make the convention fun to watch. Most recent conventions have been boo-rrr-ing… because one knows the results beforehand. In this case, there would be excitment about the convention… which will bring much more attention to the Democratic Party and its positions. Most folks don’t remember the days of exciting conventions: 1968, 1972, even 1976.

I do hope (but alas I don’t think it will be the case) that the lesson from Tuesday won’t be that negative campaigning is why Hillary succeeded. She won the primaries, basically, because not enough folks changed fast enough to the other side (combined with the Rush Limbaugh effect — he told R’s to vote for Hillary). Negative campaigning will hurt the eventual D candidate, because they are just doing the job for the other side. As I said, I hope they realize that, but I expect that they won’t. Sigh.

Today’s electoralvote has an interesting observation on the election:

If Hillary Clinton wins the primary and election, we will have a constitutional crisis because she is not eligible to be President. Problem? She’s a woman. Article II, Section 1 of the constitution starts:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: …”

Notice the word “He.” Nothing about “He or she.” But what about the 19th amendmnent, you ask? It reads in full:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Not a word about holding public office. Just voting. Thus the “He” in Article II, Section 1 is still operative. It hasn’t been overridden. But Hillary could pull a fast one. She could choose Bill as her running mate, then resign immediately after being inaugurated. Wouldn’t this run afoul of the the 22nd amendment? Nope. It starts out like this:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

So Bill can’t be elected again, but nothing stops him from succeeding to the office in the event of the President’s resignation, impeachment, incapacitation, or death. Some people might not like that, so they can vote for McCain to avoid these nasty constitutional issues. Well not exactly. McCain wasn’t born in the United States. He’s a Zonian.

What about Obama? He was born in Hawaii. When did it become a state, now? Ah. 1959. When was Obama born? 1961. So it was part of the United States when he was born, but not by much. It would have been kind of messy to have three candidates for President, none of whom was actually eligible for the job. SCOTUS would have had to work overtime to pick a President. Chances are Justice Scalia would have asked: “What was the original intent of the founders (Scalia is an Originalist). The intent was clearly that the President should be a propertied white male. Slaves counted for 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3) and while women counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House, they couldn’t vote or hold office.

Now, of course this argument intrigues me, as both a board gamer (and thus a rules lawyer), and someone who interprets criteria for a living. Remember, the qualifications for President are:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, although the claim of “he” might knock out Hillary, the qualifications don’t knock out either John or Oback (as we’re on a first name basis). But then again, the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Is the Canal Zone part of the United States? I don’t see where the constitution otherwise defines what is a citizen. However, later definitions extended the definition to cover children born to U.S. parents overseas. But the discussion is interesting, and it has never been tested (the only candidates not born in a state were Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain).

In short, we still could have some interesting Supreme Court involvement.

So the perennial is reentering the presidental race. The first time he did it, it was potentially interesting, demonstrating dissatisfaction with the choices, although many believe he is responsible for the shrubbery planted in the West Wing. The second time he did it, he didn’t mount a credable attack, although there was dissatisfaction with the choices. This third time, however, is not the charm: we have interesting and qualified choices, he’s old (even older than McCain), and he’s lost any positive reputation he had.

So, the American populace, I give you your latest Presidential Candidate: Ralph Nader, the Harold Stassen of a new Generation.

Despite what you hear on the TV news or read in the papers, there were clear winners in yesterday’s “Super Tuesday” primaries.

The clear winner was …. the American public. This race has created an energized electorate, with more participation by the young and minorities. My wife told me that there was remarkable turnout at our precinct, and that they almost ran out of ballots. Other precincts were similar. Further, at least on the Democratic side, the rules for apportioning delegates, combined with the superdelegates (who are not pledged, to my knowledge, but simply have preferences), this race is likely to go down the wire. Estimated counts show the difference between Clinton and Obama at anywhere from 30 to 100 delegates. We won’t know exactly until all the results are in and the odd Democratic formula applied (and of course, the superdelegates are wildcards). During the rest of February we have Wash., Nebraska, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and the Chesapeake region primaries (VA, MD, DC). These could go heavily Obama. In March, there are Ohio and Texas, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Vermont. Pennsylvania in April. All will be important, especially as Clinton is not focusing much on the remaining February states, but putting her energy into Ohio and Texas. We could very well see a convention fight for the Democrats — something we haven’t seen since 1968. All this does is energize people and get them involved. This is great.

The clear loser was …. George Bush. No matter what happens, he’s toast. McCain, the Republican front-runner, is a maverick in the party. Although he’ll likely pair with a conservative, you clearly don’t have a traditional conservative Republican. On the Democratic side, both Clinton and Obama are strong candidates with clear vision. Either will make a good president, which is why the fight is so close (I don’t think the issue is the quality of their ideas, but the size and shape of their luggage). It’s clear we’re going to elect a senator as president (we haven’t had a senator since LBJ), and this bodes well for a better level of cooperation in government. And thus, the era of George Bush, with the imperial Presidency and leaders who fight with congress and don’t feel that congress has rights to information, is dead.

So I’m pleased with these election results. I’m looking forward to watch the decision process unfold. I do hope the candidates continue to keep the focus positive, discussing issues and ideas, emphasizing why we should vote for them, as opposed to why we shouldn’t vote for ‘da udder guy.

And thus endeth my political soapbox for this morning.

As a reminder, here are my endorsements:

• Presidential Preference: Obama. I’ve read through his platform, and find I like his thinking and positions. I also feel he has the best chance to work with Congress without the rancor and baggage that might come with other Democratic candidates. I think he is much more aware of technology and the power of the Internet, and he appears to want to use it in a positive way to provide transparency in government, which is a good thing. He’s garnering interesting endorsements from astute folks.

  Although his positions are very close to Hilary Clinton, I don’t think she is the right candidate because she would bring too much baggage with her in terms of the “Clinton Legacy” — in other words, both the Bush and Clinton dynastys are flashpoints for the other side in Congress, and actually create gridlock because of their history. I strongly believe that Hilary should stay in the Senate — she is this generation’s Ted Kennedy, and should be the voice for the liberal cause, fighting for the downtrodden in the Senate. That’s where she would be most effective. I also worry about the two-body problem: her famous hubby would likely serve only to create distractions in Congress, especially with the GOP as they feel he already had his opportunity. If she ends up being the Democratic nominee I could support her, but I don’t think she is the stronger nominee.

  If you are Republican, I suggest a vote for McCain. Over the years, he has shown the ability to think. Although I don’t agree with his stand on many issues, I think he is the best of the current Republican field.

• Prop 91: Yes. This explains why.
• Prop 92: No. The only way to lower fees without raising taxes is by increasing debt. Much as I believe Community Colleges are a good thing, I don’t think this is the answer.
• Prop 93: No. This is a deceptive way for some folks to extend their terms. I might have supported it if current officeholders didn’t get an extension out of it.
• Props 94-97: No. Much as I would love the extra income, the numbers are inflated. I think better compacts can be negotiated.
• Prop S (Los Angeles): Yes. Although there are some ruses in here (although the rate is lowered, more money is raised; there is no guarantee for policy), the important facts are: (1) without the proposition, the phone tax income may be lost completely due to lawsuits, severely impacting the city’s budget; (2) Federal law prevents this from being a general tax on the internet. Basically, this proposition fixes the problem with the tax that created the lawsuits, and extends it to cover alternate phone services, such as VOIP (but not email).

Disclaimer: These positions reflect my personal thinking only.