Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Pro-life and Pro-Obama
There was an interesting article in today's LA Times by a Catholic Obama supporter. He addressed a lot of my own issues, and I wanted to share the article with you. Basically, he asks whether someone who is pro-life, as I am, can really support Barack Obama. I think he made a good case that yes, you can. I know most of those who read this blog are pro-life, just like me. So it might speak to you in the same way it did to me.
The Fear Factor
I'm not surprised that the presidential campaign has taken a decidedly negative turn in the past few days. This has a lot to do with the economy. I think my father put it best when he said that the economy is "going sideways." There is no clear direction for the financial system of our country. While I believe the bailout was necessary to protect the investments of Americans, there is a lot more that needs to happen. If the polls are to be believed, many more people trust Barack Obama to fix the economy than trust John McCain, whose primary financial advisor, Phil Gramm, said that the recession was all in our minds.
Because more Americans trust Barack Obama on this point, the McCain campaign is desperate to change the subject. So they have given new life to long-discredited attacks on Obama's character because of his associations with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In response, Obama has mentioned McCain's association with Charles Keating, an instrumental part of the savings and loan failure in the late 1980s and a man who was sentenced to prison time for committing fraud. The interesting thing to me is that McCain said months ago, when Hillary Clinton tried this tactic (or is it a strategy?) on Obama in the primaries, that he would never engage in this kind of campaigning. Well, he's doing it now. And it is shameful. McCain is solely to blame for this negative turn.
There is a difference in their attacks. Obama's attacks have a foundation in reality. McCain really was admonished by the Senate for his role in the Keating scandal. It really does reflect directly on his character. Obama had nothing to do with Ayers's violent past, and his pastor's sermons have been taken wildly out of context. More than anything else, Obama has been attacking McCain for running a negative campaign. I think this is relevant because it points out McCain's hypocrisy and his lack of original ideas for solving our financial dilemma. Hopefully, McCain's poll numbers will continue to plummet and he will realize that the only way to save his legacy will be to stop attacking and return to an honorable campaign.
But it gets worse. Sarah Palin is using this garbage in her stump speech and inciting radicals in the crowd. It is now public knowledge that her rally in Clearwater, Florida attracted a bunch of racists who hurled epithets at black camera crews and one audience member yelled that they should kill Obama. Audience members at McCain's rallies are calling Obama a terrorist. This is just wrong. I know some of my readers support McCain, and I think you need to ask yourselves: do I really support a man who is inciting violence against his opponent?
Found this
VP Debate
Last night's debate was a little surreal. The expectations for Sarah Palin were set so low that anything better than a complete meltdown would have been hailed as a success. Everyone was talking about how Joe Biden has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth and waited for him to say something stupid. In the end, however, I think we got a really good sense about which of them was prepared to be Vice President. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Sarah Palin.
Probably the most aggravating part about it was the Palin steadfastly refused to answer the questions posed to her. Essentially, she took every question and brought it back to her predetermined talking points. It troubles me that we are one month from the election, and we still have not had clear answers from her on a range of important issues. Her ridiculous attempt to portray the media as "out to get her" got even worse last night. Let me put it this way: we already have a "Joe six-pack" in the White House, and he's done a terrible job. Do we really want Sarah Six-Pack anywhere near the Oval Office?
I think Biden did a tremendous job overall. I've been trying to learn more about him lately, and I have found myself liking him more and more. Yes, he can say some ridiculous things, but he is a genuinely thoughtful and caring person. I didn't know he was a widower, and when he brought that up, I thought he did so in a careful and respectful way, not the way John McCain keeps making a fool of himself by constantly talking about his experience as a POW.
The one thing I will say about Biden is that I wish he had called Palin out more. For example, when she called the US commander in Afghanistan by the wrong name. Or when she talked about reducing taxes in Alaska, when she in fact raised taxes in Wasilla to pay for a sports arena that is still losing money years later. Or when she cited Al Qaeda . . . AL QAEDA! . . . as her source for saying that the primary front in the war on terror is in Iraq. And I wish he had pointed out more forcefully that she was not answering the questions--questions that we need to have answered.
My favorite parts of the debate: when Palin used Al Qaeda as her source, when Biden challenged Palin to explain how a McCain administration would differ from the Bush administration, and when Biden gave his vision of the office of Vice President while Palin aligned herself with Dick Cheney. And who will ever forget Sarah Palin blaming climate change for affecting the activities of humans (she clearly got that backward). Palin did nothing to distinguish herself last night other than not completely falling apart. She added nothing substantive to the debate.
Overall, I think that the debate was a study in contrast between Joe Biden, who knew what he was talking about, and Sarah Palin, who once again demonstrated that she has no knowledge about some of the key issues facing our nation beyond some sycophantic talking points. The fact that Palin avoided a meltdown did nothing to dispel my doubts about her. The New York Times gave an excellent editorial on this today, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Wall Street "Bailout"
Much has been said about the potential government bailout of Wall Street investment companies who made bad decisions on purchasing mortgage securities. It has been called the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I'm not an economist, but I have looked at what has been going on, and I have a few comments I would like to make. Let me be clear: I support the government's efforts to apply a short-term band-aid to the banking industry and keep it from failing if adequate safeguards are put into place on issues like executive compensation and oversight. Not to do this could potentially lead to disastrous financial consequences that affect not just rich investors, but everyone who has a retirement plan.
First of all, the root causes of this crisis are obvious, and there is no need for John McCain's "9/11 Commission"-type investigation. The Bush administration and Republican-led Congress loosened the rules for mortgage lenders and other types of investments, which made it easier for more people to qualify for mortgages, regardless of their ability to pay them back. This artificially inflated the value of homes, creating a "bubble" effect. It took a few years, but the market finally slowed down when people realized that they could no longer pay their mortgages. In many cases, these people got their mortgages based on bad information. they assumed (with some reason) that home values would continue to rise at a consistent rate. In other cases, the mortgage companies engaged in fraudulent practices like increasing the stated income of an applicant so that he/she could qualify for a larger loan. They began the practice of interest-only loans, no-money-down home purchases, and other risky type loans that would eventually come back to haunt people when the amount due suddenly increased to the point where they could no longer afford it. Now the banks that made those loans are looking for a handout from the government.
But the problem does not stop there. Those mortgages were "bundled" and sold as investments to other firms, many of which take care of retirement funds. Now that many people are no longer able to pay the loans back, the banks have significantly reduced operating capital, which is leading to a "credit freeze." While I am as opposed to excessive credit as the next guy (still paying for school), I have to say that the credit markets are what make business, and therefore growth, possible. Some of Wall Street's largest firms have already collapsed, beginning with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, giant mortgage lenders, Lehman Brothers, one of the oldest investment banks in America, and AIG, an insurance giant (thank goodness I didn't hand them my retirement last month). Washington Mutual, a bank, failed as well in the largest bank failure we've ever seen.
Scary things are happening, so what do we do? In the Great Depression, there were two approaches, that of Herbert Hoover, a fiscal conservative, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was more of Keynesian. Hoover, by allowing the markets to "correct themselves," actually triggered an even worse fall than would have occurred had some safeguards been in place to shore up troubled banks and investment groups. Roosevelt undertook a massive restructuring of the economy, in which government took a role in insuring bank deposits and other measures to promote confidence in the markets. While the country did not truly come out of the Depression until World War II led to a massive increase in productivity, the reforms created by Roosevelt (as much as I hate to admit it) have kept our country from having any total meltdowns on the same scale. In case you did not know, financial meltdowns were common before increased regulation, with at least two major Panics (Depressions) in the 1800s. While we have faced numerous "recessions" since 1940, none have come close to the problems of the 1930s or the 1800s.
The Reagan years and the Bush years have been times of de-regulation of the markets, with troubling consequences. First came the Savings and Loan scandals during the late 1980s, in which John McCain played a prominent part as a member of the Keating Five, a group of Senators who received money from a Savings and Loan owner. They tried to keep federal regulators from investigating Keating and were ultimately reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee. Next came the Bush years, during which John McCain was a champion of the de-regulation efforts that led directly to this crisis.
Allowing the market to correct itself is a good idea in theory, but the problem in this is that the federal government was complicit in the de-regulation of these industries and therefore at least somewhat culpable for the fact that many peoples' retirements are at risk. Sweden went through a similar crisis in the early 1990s and used a similar plan to help reform the banking system. They made their money back relatively quickly. I think our country should do the same.
So where do we go from here? I'm not one of those who thinks that any plan is a good plan. I think there needs to be a prudent injection of capital into the credit markets to keep things going. Having looked at the draft bill that was rejected yesterday, I was struck by the fact that they had taken the initial administration proposal and added significant modifications to it, including the creation of an oversight board, limitations on executive compensation, and a decision to dole the money out slowly, rather than all at once. It's not a perfect plan, but it is a good plan, and it is a necessary plan. I am appalled that the "maverick," John McCain, decided to insert himself into the negotiations for political gain, apparently derailing an agreement in principle. The bailout plan is necessary to protect the life savings of working Americans, and provisions were put in place to limit the abuse of funds in granting "golden parachutes."
I don't know what will happen, but I hope a resolution is reached soon.
Palin At It Again
This story broke today. Apparently the McCain campaign wanted to keep the press away from Sarah Palin's meetings with foreign leaders. But CNN finally grew a backbone and told them to give access or there would be no coverage.
It got me thinking about an alarming trend in this election: the Republicans have tried to bury Palin and keep her away from the press. I'm not sure why that is, but if I had to guess, I would assume that they know how incredibly unqualified she is and worry that she would say something totally ridiculous. John McCain himself is about to give his first press conference in three weeks. I give him a bit of a pass because he has appeared on several television programs and taken questions. He also has a track record in national politics that we can use to assess him, though he has become increasingly inconsistent and has started refusing to speak with the press (a troubling sign). Sarah Palin's national record includes an interview with Charles Gibson, who let her get away without answering any questions with any kind of substance, and with some guy on Fox News, who structured his questions in such a way that she could speak in vague platitudes (I did watch some of this). When will the media play "stump the candidate" with Palin? They've done it with McCain and with Obama and with Biden. Why does Palin get a pass?
I read this comment on a news website today, and it troubles me:
It got me thinking about an alarming trend in this election: the Republicans have tried to bury Palin and keep her away from the press. I'm not sure why that is, but if I had to guess, I would assume that they know how incredibly unqualified she is and worry that she would say something totally ridiculous. John McCain himself is about to give his first press conference in three weeks. I give him a bit of a pass because he has appeared on several television programs and taken questions. He also has a track record in national politics that we can use to assess him, though he has become increasingly inconsistent and has started refusing to speak with the press (a troubling sign). Sarah Palin's national record includes an interview with Charles Gibson, who let her get away without answering any questions with any kind of substance, and with some guy on Fox News, who structured his questions in such a way that she could speak in vague platitudes (I did watch some of this). When will the media play "stump the candidate" with Palin? They've done it with McCain and with Obama and with Biden. Why does Palin get a pass?
I read this comment on a news website today, and it troubles me:
Why should Palin grant those lying b*****ds any time at all? I refer to the Charlie Gibson "attempted murder" interview. He didn't want to interview her--he wanted to destroy her.This is an incredibly dangerous point of view. If we just "let her do her thing," that means allowing her to use private email to conduct government business in an attempt to hide from open records laws. It means allowing her to continue asserting that she turned down government money for the "bridge to nowhere" when in fact she only killed it after Congress had removed the earmark and made it a national embarrassment. We need to know why she needed so much federal money (our money) for Alaska when Alaskans have no state income or sales tax, and in fact were given 2000 dollars each last year as a bonus--money she could have used instead of federal money (possibly 80 million dollars). If the media doesn't publish something, chances are only a few people know about it. It is the media's job to provide us with enough information to make an informed choice in the election. If they don't force Palin to speak with them, how informed will our votes be?
Screw the media.
Let Sarah Palin do her thing.
McCain on Spain
I had decided not to post anything negative today, but I just couldn't let this slide. Many of you know that Plainbellied and I spent a year living in Spain, and my brother and his wife both spent two years there. My primary research specialty is Spanish history. So you can imagine that my ears perk up when that country is mentioned.
Senator McCain did an interview with a Miami affiliate of Cadena Ser, a Spanish news radio company. When the interviewer asked him about the Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Luis Zapatero, it sounded like McCain thought Spain was in Latin America, and he never responded directly to questions of whether or not he would meet with Zapatero. I don't really believe that McCain doesn't know where Spain is, but his evasive answers were troubling nonetheless.
The Washington Post wrote about it this morning.
Here is the English audio if you are interested:
If you prefer the Spanish version:
Senator McCain did an interview with a Miami affiliate of Cadena Ser, a Spanish news radio company. When the interviewer asked him about the Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Luis Zapatero, it sounded like McCain thought Spain was in Latin America, and he never responded directly to questions of whether or not he would meet with Zapatero. I don't really believe that McCain doesn't know where Spain is, but his evasive answers were troubling nonetheless.
The Washington Post wrote about it this morning.
Here is the English audio if you are interested:
If you prefer the Spanish version:
Troopergate
Maybe you've heard of "Troopergate." If you haven't, read this article from the Anchorage Daily News. It gives a good sense of what is at stake. The part that has always stuck out to me is the accusation that Wooten used a Taser on his 10-year-old son. Today, curiosity got the better of me, and I found this article, also from the Anchorage Daily News and written well before Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate.
Read them for yourself and decide. Wooten is definitely no prize, but was Palin justified in going after him and firing Walter Monegan for refusing to bend to her will? Hopefully we'll start getting some answers soon, though not if Palin insists on her refusal to cooperate with the probe.
Read them for yourself and decide. Wooten is definitely no prize, but was Palin justified in going after him and firing Walter Monegan for refusing to bend to her will? Hopefully we'll start getting some answers soon, though not if Palin insists on her refusal to cooperate with the probe.
John McCain and Marital Fidelity
I was going to do some kind of blog today about the failure of John McCain's first marriage, so I tried to find this article from the LA Times. It took me a while, and I found this article in a British newspaper. So I've decided not to do any kind of extensive rant or anything, and just let readers see what we know about it. If you're interested to know how he treats his current wife, then you should look at this article (beware as it contains some filthy language--just as it came out of McCain's mouth).
The bottom line here is that McCain has been less than honest about his motives for divorcing his first wife, he was clearly unfaithful to her, and he dumped her as soon as he found a richer, more attractive woman. While this has no bearing on the issues of this campaign, it has bearing on the character of the man. Distasteful.
The bottom line here is that McCain has been less than honest about his motives for divorcing his first wife, he was clearly unfaithful to her, and he dumped her as soon as he found a richer, more attractive woman. While this has no bearing on the issues of this campaign, it has bearing on the character of the man. Distasteful.
My Take on Sarah Palin
When John McCain announced his choice of running mate several weeks ago, I think I had the same reaction as most people. "Who???!!!" Granted, she is a governor, but how many governors can you name, let alone the governor of one of our least populous states (ahead of only North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming)? Since that time, I have been doing everything I can to learn more about her. I do not like what I have found. There is a lot to say about Sarah Palin, and very little of it is good. Plainbellied already wrote about this on her blog, but I thought I'd give my two cents as well.
Let us examine some of the issues at play:
1) Experience. The McCain campaign spent all summer telling us how inexperienced and dangerous Barack Obama would be if elected. Then, he chose Sarah Palin, who spent two terms as a mayor of a town with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants and 20 months as governor of the 47th most populous state. Immediately the McCain campaign changed its tune and declared that her "executive experience" outweighed Barack Obama's eight years in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the US Senate. To put it bluntly, I believe that Sarah Palin is woefully unprepared to be anywhere near the Presidency of the United States. Remember what happened with the last governor we elected?
2) Record. Over the past few weeks I've noticed a number of worrisome trends in Sarah Palin's record. The main problem I see is her penchant for fiscal irresponsibility. In Wasilla, the tiny town she controlled, she inherited a situation in which there were real infrastucture problems with things like sewage treatment, and she focused her attention not on these issues, but on the building of a sports complex for the community. While it was intended to bring more money into the municipal coffers, the plan for this structure was poorly designed and executed, and it was constructed on land that the town did not clearly own. Years and millions in legal fees later, most recognize the complex as a money pit. While mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring earmarked funds to Wasilla, succeeding in getting some 27 million dollars for the town. Even so, she left the town, which had about 1 million dollars in debt at the beginning of her term, more than 24 million dollars in debt. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal has exposed this problem. Why? Big ticket items like the sports complex and parks, leaving things like a sewage treatment plant undone.
As governor, Palin has proclaimed herself a maverick and a reformer. Neither is true. It is true that she launched herself into the limelight by exposing the unethical behavior of a rival who was using his government office and time to campaign. Of course, she did the very same thing while she was mayor. This, along with numerous other examples from her political career show her to be a conniving opportunist who does not play by the same rules she sets for others. While she did raise taxes on the oil industry, she also continued the practice of getting huge amounts of government earmarks, including championing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere."
Since she joined the campaign, the level of untrue attacks has risen alarmingly. While both campaigns have distorted their opponents' record to some extent, the McCain campaign has aggressively sought to present a totally incorrect image of Obama and his record. When the McCain campaign quoted factcheck.org (a nonpartisan group) in support of its ads, factcheck denounced the ads as false and misleading. The campaign has also misled the public on Palin's record, having to admit that she never traveled into Iraq and stopped in Ireland only for refueling on her trip.
3) Ethics. Governor Palin is currently under legislative investigation for ethics violations. It appears that she fired the state Public Safety Commissioner for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. While the trooper in question is clearly problematic, he was suspended for some of his activities, and the Commissioner considered the matter closed. When Palin was elected governor, she almost immediately began (along with her husband and numerous staffers) pressuring the Commissioner to fire the trooper. When he would not, she fired him. Before she was chosen as McCain's running mate, Palin agreed to fully cooperate with the probe. Once McCain made the announcement, her aides pulled out of scheduled meetings with the legislature's investigator. Today she announced that she would not cooperate. This is a terrible precedent. The current president and his staff have done the same thing by invoking "executive privilege" to avoid answering congressional subpoenas. Do we want more government secrecy in the future?
Speaking of secrecy, Palin and her aides also championed the use of personal email accounts as a way to circumvent open records laws, even though this is an egregious violation of the law and the public trust. One of the reasons we don't know much about Palin's dealings with her aides is her use of private, unaccounted-for email addresses.
Equally troubling is the record of how many people she has fired. In her time both as mayor and as governor, Palin has wielded executive authority as a weapon to silence her critics and promote her allies. In Wasilla, she totally gutted the town's leadership, seeking to fire the librarian, and successfully firing the local museum director, plus the police chief and some of her own advisors who opposed her policies. Those who oppose her are branded "haters" and eliminated as soon as possible. Not only does she fire her enemies, but she appoints unqualified friends to important positions, such as her friend that she hired as the head of the State Division of Agriculture whose primary qualification appears to be her childhood love of cows.
Just a few months ago she said she didn't know what the Vice President does.
More recently, she couldn't explain her position on the Bush Doctrine. (I wouldn't have known the answer either, but I'm not running for VP!) Notice how totally surprised Charlie Gibson was when she couldn't answer his question:
After all is said and done, what do those close to Sarah Palin think? Well, one of her friends from Wasilla wrote an email for her friends outside of Wasilla who kept asking about Palin. The message has been confirmed by numerous sources to be true. If you want to know more about the type of person we have running for Vice President, go ahead and read it.
In beginning the process of learning about Palin, I tried very hard to be dispassionate, but having learned more about her, I must conclude that she should not be placed a heartbeat away from the presidency. If nothing else, such a reckless and unconsidered choice must reflect badly on John McCain, who has a penchant for high-stakes gambling. This time, he's not gambling with his wife's millions. He's gambling with our future.
Let us examine some of the issues at play:
1) Experience. The McCain campaign spent all summer telling us how inexperienced and dangerous Barack Obama would be if elected. Then, he chose Sarah Palin, who spent two terms as a mayor of a town with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants and 20 months as governor of the 47th most populous state. Immediately the McCain campaign changed its tune and declared that her "executive experience" outweighed Barack Obama's eight years in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the US Senate. To put it bluntly, I believe that Sarah Palin is woefully unprepared to be anywhere near the Presidency of the United States. Remember what happened with the last governor we elected?
2) Record. Over the past few weeks I've noticed a number of worrisome trends in Sarah Palin's record. The main problem I see is her penchant for fiscal irresponsibility. In Wasilla, the tiny town she controlled, she inherited a situation in which there were real infrastucture problems with things like sewage treatment, and she focused her attention not on these issues, but on the building of a sports complex for the community. While it was intended to bring more money into the municipal coffers, the plan for this structure was poorly designed and executed, and it was constructed on land that the town did not clearly own. Years and millions in legal fees later, most recognize the complex as a money pit. While mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring earmarked funds to Wasilla, succeeding in getting some 27 million dollars for the town. Even so, she left the town, which had about 1 million dollars in debt at the beginning of her term, more than 24 million dollars in debt. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal has exposed this problem. Why? Big ticket items like the sports complex and parks, leaving things like a sewage treatment plant undone.
As governor, Palin has proclaimed herself a maverick and a reformer. Neither is true. It is true that she launched herself into the limelight by exposing the unethical behavior of a rival who was using his government office and time to campaign. Of course, she did the very same thing while she was mayor. This, along with numerous other examples from her political career show her to be a conniving opportunist who does not play by the same rules she sets for others. While she did raise taxes on the oil industry, she also continued the practice of getting huge amounts of government earmarks, including championing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere."
Since she joined the campaign, the level of untrue attacks has risen alarmingly. While both campaigns have distorted their opponents' record to some extent, the McCain campaign has aggressively sought to present a totally incorrect image of Obama and his record. When the McCain campaign quoted factcheck.org (a nonpartisan group) in support of its ads, factcheck denounced the ads as false and misleading. The campaign has also misled the public on Palin's record, having to admit that she never traveled into Iraq and stopped in Ireland only for refueling on her trip.
3) Ethics. Governor Palin is currently under legislative investigation for ethics violations. It appears that she fired the state Public Safety Commissioner for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. While the trooper in question is clearly problematic, he was suspended for some of his activities, and the Commissioner considered the matter closed. When Palin was elected governor, she almost immediately began (along with her husband and numerous staffers) pressuring the Commissioner to fire the trooper. When he would not, she fired him. Before she was chosen as McCain's running mate, Palin agreed to fully cooperate with the probe. Once McCain made the announcement, her aides pulled out of scheduled meetings with the legislature's investigator. Today she announced that she would not cooperate. This is a terrible precedent. The current president and his staff have done the same thing by invoking "executive privilege" to avoid answering congressional subpoenas. Do we want more government secrecy in the future?
Speaking of secrecy, Palin and her aides also championed the use of personal email accounts as a way to circumvent open records laws, even though this is an egregious violation of the law and the public trust. One of the reasons we don't know much about Palin's dealings with her aides is her use of private, unaccounted-for email addresses.
Equally troubling is the record of how many people she has fired. In her time both as mayor and as governor, Palin has wielded executive authority as a weapon to silence her critics and promote her allies. In Wasilla, she totally gutted the town's leadership, seeking to fire the librarian, and successfully firing the local museum director, plus the police chief and some of her own advisors who opposed her policies. Those who oppose her are branded "haters" and eliminated as soon as possible. Not only does she fire her enemies, but she appoints unqualified friends to important positions, such as her friend that she hired as the head of the State Division of Agriculture whose primary qualification appears to be her childhood love of cows.
Just a few months ago she said she didn't know what the Vice President does.
More recently, she couldn't explain her position on the Bush Doctrine. (I wouldn't have known the answer either, but I'm not running for VP!) Notice how totally surprised Charlie Gibson was when she couldn't answer his question:
After all is said and done, what do those close to Sarah Palin think? Well, one of her friends from Wasilla wrote an email for her friends outside of Wasilla who kept asking about Palin. The message has been confirmed by numerous sources to be true. If you want to know more about the type of person we have running for Vice President, go ahead and read it.
In beginning the process of learning about Palin, I tried very hard to be dispassionate, but having learned more about her, I must conclude that she should not be placed a heartbeat away from the presidency. If nothing else, such a reckless and unconsidered choice must reflect badly on John McCain, who has a penchant for high-stakes gambling. This time, he's not gambling with his wife's millions. He's gambling with our future.
Turtar Enters the Arena
John McCain's decision to make Sarah Palin his running mate has caused me to become more politically involved. Unfortunately for them, this is a negative. I believe that our nation would make a tragic mistake by electing John McCain and Sarah Palin to the highest offices in the land.
First, a little background. . . In 2000, I voted for President for the first time (I could have voted in 1996 but was overseas and failed to get an absentee ballot). In that case, I was living in Florida and voted for George W. Bush. Primarily, I voted for him because I am mostly a moderate conservative (I straddle the fence on a lot of issues). I had serious problems with the way the Clinton administration had behaved itself, and I hoped that Bush's presidency would bring real change to Washington. Then the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks intervened, and everything changed. Bush spearheaded a campaign to introduce a wildly invasive domestic spying law, and he began to play a zero-sum game with politics. You were either for him or an enemy. Incredibly, I had failed to learn my lesson, and I voted for Bush again in 2004. I remember thinking, "We have a population of nearly 300 million people, and these two idiots are the best we can do for President." Sadly, I believe that I was swayed, at least in some measure, by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who spread lies and rumors defaming John Kerry's military record. But I wanted a certain type of Supreme Court Justice, which I got in John Roberts and Sam Alito, who I think are excellent judges.
However, I now wonder if I made the right choice. In exchange for those two judges, important as they may be, we now have a crippled economy due to an aggressive policy of government deregulation, a war that is dragging on due to inefficient management, government spying, a secretive military prison allowing the torture of prisoners who are kept for years without being charged or tried, and an incredibly secretive government bent on hiding its actions from the public. This is not what I wanted when I voted for George W. Bush, and in many ways I regret that I did not fully comprehend what his government was doing over the past few years.
Because of my disillusionment with the failed policies of George W. Bush, who I helped to elect, I have vowed to make a more careful choice in the future. As a result, I have changed my criteria for voting to reflect a candidate's potential governing style, preferring honesty, integrity, and openness whereas in the past I focused on a narrow range of policy positions. Because of my new criteria, I support Barack Obama for President of the United States.
I have been an Obama supporter for many months now, though I have never donated to his campaign. I disagree with Senator Obama on numerous issues, but I agree more than I disagree. His opponents have criticized him for being "just words." However, they miss the larger message of his campaign. They miss the concept of togetherness and unity, of bipartisanship and civility in government. During the 1990s, the Republican Party made politics in the United States a culture war, trying to contrast righteous "conservatives" with underhanded and immoral "liberals." This dichotomy is false. Too many "conservatives" have shown that they pay mere lip service to the values they espouse, and too many "liberals" have proven to be much more honest and thoughtful than their political opponents.
I do not know if Barack Obama will be a great president, but of the remaining candidates, he is the only one who has tried to put aside partisan rancor. I believe that an Obama presidency would restore, honor, dignity, and openness to the office of President. I cannot say the same of John McCain, who glorifies in promoting his own ignorance and stoops to new levels of subterfuge and dishonesty in attacking his opponents.
Over the next weeks, you will hear more from me on these issues. I will try to post relevant topics in this space every day, complete with useful links.
Date Night
Plainbellied and I had a free date night tonight. We got a babysitter who would watch Her Nibs for service credit at school, and then we went to a lecture at my department (preceded with a reception, where we ate). The speaker was a very distinguished scholar of American history who I have admired for a long time. I had never heard him speak, and it was great to have that chance. Unfortunately, the lecture disappointed me.
One thing in particular troubles me. He said that the electoral college had been instituted by the founding fathers because they did not trust the citizens to make the right choice for President. He used this to argue that the system is antiquated and needs to be removed in favor of a direct presidential election. Well, my own reading of the past conflicts with this view.
I know that the founding fathers did not trust average people to make good decisions. They feared democracy more than almost anything else. However, the electoral college dealt with a different problem. The property requirements for voting made sure only "qualified" people (i.e. rich white men) could influence elections. The electoral college was created to protect the interests of the smaller states (just like the Senate was). If they got rid of the electoral college, candidates could bypass rural states, thus leading to a situation where city-dwellers held political hegemony. Imagine a world in which candidates only campaigned in New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Having the electoral college forces candidates to campaign for each state.
I realize that this system can cause a disparity between the popular and electoral votes (see 1876 and 2000). However, the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. The criticism most often invoked is that many other countries do direct elections. But in most parliamentary systems, people vote for a party (not a candidate), which chooses who will sit in Parliament, and who will be the government. I know that in Spain candidates' names don't even appear on the ballot. How's that for a democracy? You don't even know who you are voting for, even though you're voting "directly." Do you really think it's that much better than an electoral college?
Actually, my favorite reason for having the electoral college is that when your choice for president does something boneheaded, you can honestly say, "I didn't vote for him," because technically you voted for his electors. We're all off the hook now.
Well, I waded into politics again. I promise not to do it again for at least a few days.
One thing in particular troubles me. He said that the electoral college had been instituted by the founding fathers because they did not trust the citizens to make the right choice for President. He used this to argue that the system is antiquated and needs to be removed in favor of a direct presidential election. Well, my own reading of the past conflicts with this view.
I know that the founding fathers did not trust average people to make good decisions. They feared democracy more than almost anything else. However, the electoral college dealt with a different problem. The property requirements for voting made sure only "qualified" people (i.e. rich white men) could influence elections. The electoral college was created to protect the interests of the smaller states (just like the Senate was). If they got rid of the electoral college, candidates could bypass rural states, thus leading to a situation where city-dwellers held political hegemony. Imagine a world in which candidates only campaigned in New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Having the electoral college forces candidates to campaign for each state.
I realize that this system can cause a disparity between the popular and electoral votes (see 1876 and 2000). However, the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. The criticism most often invoked is that many other countries do direct elections. But in most parliamentary systems, people vote for a party (not a candidate), which chooses who will sit in Parliament, and who will be the government. I know that in Spain candidates' names don't even appear on the ballot. How's that for a democracy? You don't even know who you are voting for, even though you're voting "directly." Do you really think it's that much better than an electoral college?
Actually, my favorite reason for having the electoral college is that when your choice for president does something boneheaded, you can honestly say, "I didn't vote for him," because technically you voted for his electors. We're all off the hook now.
Well, I waded into politics again. I promise not to do it again for at least a few days.
Early Birds or Worms?
I'm a little confused, so I'm hoping someone can explain to me why we have candidates beginning their run for president almost two years before the election. It doesn't make sense. And now they're talking about the candidates forgoing public campaign financing. This means they'll be raising huge amounts of money. Does this strike anyone else as odd? It is creating the real possibility for major accounting fraud. They've raised the possibility that the candidates will spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's crazy.
I'd like to propose an idea: we shouldn't allow candidates to declare themselves until about a year before the elections. Then we don't have to worry about them spending time campaigning while they should be governor or in the Senate or something. And when they decide to run, they should be forced to resign any other political office they hold. That way, we'll make sure they're serious, and those whose senator or governor is galavanting around on the campaign trail will still have representation.
While we're at it, why don't we make every candidate use public campaign financing, then limit that severely, giving every candidate a level playing field? I for one would welcome this, because it would significantly reduce the number of lame election ads I have to watch in 2008. That would be real campaign finance reform.
I'd like to propose an idea: we shouldn't allow candidates to declare themselves until about a year before the elections. Then we don't have to worry about them spending time campaigning while they should be governor or in the Senate or something. And when they decide to run, they should be forced to resign any other political office they hold. That way, we'll make sure they're serious, and those whose senator or governor is galavanting around on the campaign trail will still have representation.
While we're at it, why don't we make every candidate use public campaign financing, then limit that severely, giving every candidate a level playing field? I for one would welcome this, because it would significantly reduce the number of lame election ads I have to watch in 2008. That would be real campaign finance reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)