Bad McCain Ad McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time, but then criticizes Obama for voting Democrat 97% of the time.

The first time I saw the ad, I thought it odd, because if McCain is supposed to be so great because he disagrees with fellow Republicans some of the time, isn't a Democrat who disagrees with Republicans almost all of the time even better?

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, John McCain, politics

  5:51 PM permanent link 0 comments

  What Duty? Pat Buchanan looks at the Dobson-Obama flap, and thinks Dobson makes a couple of good points. "At issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?"

Indeed, Obama celebrates the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists who, to end slavery, took us over the brink into Civil War. He invokes the defiant marchers of Selma Bridge and Dr. King, who chose confrontation and tore the nation asunder rather than see segregation endure.

Obama, however, is now preaching a kumbaya Christianity where leaders who believe abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn are to set their convictions and cause aside in the name of ecumenical amity.

But what is this "duty" to make "God's Law man's law?" Is it a law to love another, or a law to sow discord and conflict in order to object to the choices other people make? Did Dr. King have a "duty" to call for unprecedented federal intervention in property rights and freedom of association? Does Christian A have a duty to force racist B to kinder to minority C? Or should A just love B and C and do unto them as he would do unto himself?

Does Dr. Dobson have a "duty" to criminalize the killing of the unborn? And if this is accomplished in the U.S.A., do we then have a "duty" to save the unborn in Canada? In China? Why not? A few months ago I was told by a friend that she was pregnant. Even at ninth months it was hardly noticeable. What if she had a miscarriage months before, and never told anyone? It wouldn't have made a difference to anyone else, any more than every time she had sex and didn't conceive. What then would have been the difference to the rest of us if she had an abortion (not that this friend ever would)? To what lengths is The State supposed to go to make sure abortions don't happen, or to prosecute those who perform or procure them?

Frankly, I think social peace is often underrated.

Labels: politics, religion

  3:29 PM permanent link 0 comments

  The Civil Liberties Myth This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Democrats get a lot of mileage for their extreme pro-abortion views, faint pro-gay rights views, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, and being perceived as on the "Left" along with the ACLU. And yes, perhaps if you think the most important issue in the world is whether "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, you correctly perceive the Democrats agree with you more than Republicans. But if you think you can therefore trust Democrats in Congress and the White House to protect your rights on any issue that actually matters, you are hopelessly naive.

Labels: civil liberties, Democratic Party, Partial Observer, politics

  6:25 AM permanent link 0 comments

  McCain's VP . . . . . . will be South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Once he's announced, I'll explain my prediction.

Labels: elections, John McCain, politics

  3:57 PM permanent link 1 comments

  Vote For What You Want This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 2000, Bush was better on Gore on the most important issue, war, but as President he switched positions and became the world's biggest threat to peace. Presidential candidates break promises, and there is very little we can do about it.

I,like many others, would wish we could rewind and see how a Gore Presidency would turn out. But the fact is, the Clinton-Gore position of murdering innocent foreign peoples "for their own good" was intolerable. True, Gore would probably have been better than Bush, but the 2000 campaign didn't demonstrate it.

Barack Obama is presumably smarter and more knowledgeable than McCain - at least he comes across that way. And, as Bush did in 2000, he's taking the relatively more moderate and humane view toward foreign affairs than his rival.

But what does that prove?

Labels: Barack Obama, Bob Barr, elections, John McCain, Partial Observer, politics, third parties

  7:22 AM permanent link

  Outsiders vs. Insiders Who's an "insider" and "outsider" is all relative, but

• In 2008, Obama is a relative "outsider," having served less than four years in Congress - and really just two years before launching his Presidential bid - and can plead "not guilty" for most of the disastrous policies of Bush's first term - which Clinton voted for. Aside from Mark Gravel, there was no other real outsider in the race - the closest was Bill Richardson, but he was very much a Washington insider in the 1990's.
  
• On the GOP side, McCain is an insider, and quickly defeated outsiders Romney and Huckabee.
• In 2004, Washington insider John Kerry beat the outsider Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination, but lost to a terrible incumbent.
  

Let's look at the record:

2004: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
2000: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Outsider
1996: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1992: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1988: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Incumbent
1984: Insider (recent VP) vs. Incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1980: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1976: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1972: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1968: "Outsider" (former VP eight years removed from DC) vs. incumbent VP. Winner, Outsider

Before that: incumbents won every race back to 1932, except 1960 (insider beating incumbent VP) and 1952 (outsider vs. outsider).

In modern politics, incumbents have advantages. Even so, outsiders have won every race except one (1988) in which they've competed, whereas "insider" challenges to incumbents have lost all four times.

Apparently, when an insider challenges an incumbent, the impression the public gets is "either way, more of the same." Whereas "outsiders," usually stand for "changing the way Washington works" and do very well.

Why do people want "change" so much? Perhaps because the federal government hasn't accomplished one good thing for the American people in 35 years at least.

In any case, 2008 will be interesting because no incumbent will be running. It will be Outsider vs. Insider. As we've seen, the Outsider has the advantage.

Especially because he has not one, but two Ivy League degrees.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, John McCain, politics

  3:32 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Barr Wins LP Nomination I saw most of the balloting on C-Span today. It looks like everything went like clockwork. The non-endorsements by George Phillies and Mike Gravel probably hurt Mary Ruwart, but the combined Barr and Root votes were favoring Barr throughout.

For months my argument was Barr centered around stealing votes for McCain to ensure McCain's defeat without giving assent to the Democratic nominee. But here's the key point: Bob Barr would make a better President than any other candidate. But will he represent libertarian ideas? As "Fluffy" comments at Reason:

In 2008, if a candidate talks about shrinking government, pushing back the nanny state, restoring civil liberties, halting the frenzied rush to a surveillance society we've seen in the last 8 years, foreign policy restraint, and drug policy liberalization, those are core libertarian beliefs.

Labels: Bob Barr, elections, Libertarian Party, politics, third parties

  6:50 PM permanent link 0 comments

  What the Hell There is nothing I like about Hillary Clinton, but there is nothing wrong for staying in the race through June. 2000's and 2004's coronations are the exception, not the norm, for the Democratic nomination process. To cite RFK's assassination as a reason to stay on through June suggests nothing but "anything can happen between now and the convention."

Hillary said nothing offensive and shouldn't have to apologize.

It seems like the only time candidates get into trouble is when they tell the truth.

Labels: elections, Hillary Clinton, politics

  3:35 PM permanent link 0 comments

  A Couple Notes on McCain Andrew Sullivan:

For me, however, the defeat of Giulaini's neofascist tendencies, Romney's callow theoconservatism and Huckabee's Christianist schtick has been a huge gain. And the defeat of the Clintons an even bigger one. I'm not complaining about the conflicts ahead. They are wonderful conflicts to be weighing given what we were contemplating six months ago.

Good point. I wonder if McCain won the primaries because a) he was well-known, and b) not because of what he was, but because of what he was not. Being relatively "moderate" on social issues hid his extreme, bloodthirsty foreign policy and busy-body interventionism in domestic affairs.

Richard Spencer notes, however, that among Republican voters, judicial appointments are more important than the war. But as commenter "the original jack" reminds us, "The juridiction of The Surpreme Court in abortion cases could have been removed by simple act of Congress with the President’s signature. We had years to do it. Instead we went to the middle east and destroyed the economy and the Republican Party. To vote for McCain after this treachery is insane."

There is no reason to vote for McCain. Aside from mild opposition to torture and pork spending, he is wrong on everything. The only reason anybody would vote for him is if one views elections like a college football fan. You cheer for Michigan to beat Notre Dame because either you like Michigan for non-rational reasons, or you hate Notre Dame. The won-loss record of the parties is what counts, not the actual people or policies.

I hope people with conscience and convictions vote third-party instead.

Labels: elections, John McCain, politics, Republican Party

  1:00 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Values and Presidential Elections People have different and often-conflicting values, especially in politics. I would place them into these value categories:

• ideology: what do you believe are the best ends and best means for a better world?

• patriotism: what's best for my country and people as a whole?

• economic analysis: would my idealistic principles actually work in a given situation (e.g., "I'm for open borders, but not flooding of immigrants into a welfare state.")

• cultural affinities/identity groups: What voting "bloc(s)" are you in? Are you a Christian who believes Christians are being persecuted? Are you a woman who believes you're falling behind in a sexist culture? Race, sexuality, and domestic resentments come into play here.

• local interests: e.g., "if they close down the nearby base, a lot of jobs will be lost!"

• individual/family economic interests: e.g., "We just couldn't afford the taxes this candidate wants to raise, or will be hurt too much by the programs he wants to cut."

• fears of foreign threats: in which idealistic principles are ignored in the face of particular perceived threats, like "Islamic extremists."

These values kick in at different times. In the early stage of a war, for instance, the fear factor might override all. But then anti-government feelings may awaken again. I haven't done a study on this, but my guess is that when casting a vote for President the average person would unconsciously rank their value categories like this:

1. individual/family self-interest: If you think a candidate's policies will cost you your job or health care, you may feel you have no choice but to vote against him. And if another will give you a big tax break, you'd probably vote for him.

2. patriotism: people want to be inspired by their President and proud of their nation, to make it "great" again.

#3-5 may jump higher depending on the situation:

3. cultural/identity group: one candidate will make you feel he's "one of us" while his opponent is "one of them."

4. fears of foreign threats: may jump higher depending on the closeness and severity of the latest attack.

5. local interests: factory closings or high crime rates will cause many voters to look for national solutions.

And at the bottom:

6. ideology: most people don't have a well-developed or thought-out ideology.

7. economic analysis: most people probably neglect this, thinking that it depends on having the "right people" in charge.

The Libertarian Party's problem is that it focuses most where voters focus least: ideology and economics. The challenge is to nominate someone (and they'll be nominating someone this weekend, in Denver) whose positions are right and do make economic sense, but who can package them in a way that persuades people this is best not only for themselves, but also for the American people as a whole. If Bob Barr is "libertarian enough," I hope he gets the nomination, because I think he may be the best one to package the message in the most persuasive way and get the most votes in the general election.

Labels: Culture, elections, politics

  1:15 PM permanent link 1 comments

  Hating Hillary There are bigots and sexists. And then there are those who try not to be bigoted or sexist, but do dislike some people of various groups, particularly groups spokespersons who in their words and deeds reflect poorly on the group they're trying to defend and advance. Then the old racist or sexist slurs may rise to the surface, not against average members of a particular group, but against its supposed "leaders."

What if Alan Dershowitz was a serious candidate for President?

He'd be a target of more vicious attacks than Joe Lieberman ever received. Some of it would approach anti-Semitism, and some of it would cross the line. Dershowitz is Jewish, and he's in your face about it. Lieberaman is Jewish, but he's not in your face.

What if Al Sharpton was a serious candidate for President?

He'd similarly be a target of more vicious attacks than what Barack Obama has received. Some of it would approach racism, and some of it would cross the line. Sharpton is black, and he's in your face. Obama is black but he's not in your face.

Vicious and obnoxious people are more likely to be treated viciously, in politics and everywhere else in life. Al Gore was smeared for being a prissy aristocrat and prick; George Bush may also be a prissy aristocrat and prick, but he didn't seem like it on the campaign trail in 2000. That makes a lot of difference.

And so Hillary Clinton has been the target of sexist attacks, but these attacks that wouldn't be as nasty toward, say, Elizabeth Dole if she had been a contender.

Some minority and female figures rise above identity-group politics, whereas others base their whole career on it - that is, are "in your face" about it and provoke, in many people, the very backlash that causes their defeats. Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer the Democratic Party but a big name, an obnoxious personality, a vote to invade Iraq, and the fact that she's a woman. According to a certain kind of logic, this makes her gender "fair game" in a way it isn't for several other public figures.

And no, Hillary's qualities would not be praised if they came from a man. She's actually very similar in style - such as condescending tones and hectoring, finger-wagging moralism - to Al Gore. Gore won the nomination in 2000 because he was the incumbent VP, and lost the general election because Bush seemed more likable (at least back then). All kinds of personalities may be able to win a Senate seat, but few play well nationally.

I agree with Marie Cocco that sexist smears have no more place in politics than other bigoted smears. But this does not mean that attacking Clinton in crude terms is the same as a hatred for women. No more than making fat jokes about a certain person indicates that one hates fat people.

Labels: bama, Barack Obama, Culture, elections, Hillary Clinton, politics

  10:11 AM permanent link 1 comments

  Barr's Running I don't know if Bob Barr will win the Libertarian Party nomination for President. And, if he does, I don't know if this will be good for the libertarian movement - whatever that is. But assuming an Obama-McCain contest in November, a vote for Barr will:

a) likely rally more disgruntled conservatives who can't stand McCain and don't want Obama either. Barr will give them a candidate closer to their values. McCain is Public Enemy #1, the world's greatest threat to peace - and therefore to liberty and prosperity. He must be defeated.

b) send a message to Obama that his program is unacceptable. The more politically weak Obama enters the White House, the less government can grow under him.

The equation would be different if Hillary Clinton is nominated, because she can't attract anti-war conservatives and libertarians they way Obama can. With Obama as the nominee, the LP and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin are actually at a greater disadvantage. Their hopes of winning votes from the anti-war Left disappear, and they will instead have to persuade the anti-war Right to vote for them instead of Obama.

However it turns out, I just want McCain and neo-conservatism to be thoroughly rejected and repudiated by the American people. Knocking Obama to under 50% of the vote, and McCain to under 40%, would be great. If Barr could get numbers in the range of Perot's 1992 total, that would be fantastic.

I'm not that optimistic. But I don't see how any other LP candidate could get more than half-a-percent of the vote. Barr has the best chance of making a difference and ensuring McCain's defeat.

Labels: Bob Barr, elecions, Libertarian Party, politics

  11:01 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Divided They Fail My latest at the Partial Observer, wondering "If they both support Ron Paul, why don't the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party merge?" Excerpt:

I don't know if it was ever strategically sound to promote philosophical principles through a political party. Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don't know if that is necessary anymore. If anything, it could lead people who take the philosophy far enough to see the contradiction of the LP's own existence.

But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. It could then do a better job of advancing libertarian ends without allowing the various, necessary and inevitable compromises to besmirch the libertarian philosophy. This is where joining together with the Constitution Party, Ron Paul Republicans, and others come in. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.

Labels: Constitution Party, elections, Libertarian Party, Partial Observer, politics, third parties

  10:51 PM permanent link

  Keyes Loses Yet Again I can't believe it was only eight years ago that I voted for Alan Keyes in the Illinois Republican Presidential Primary. Not that I regret it; he was clearly smarter and less war-mongering than McCain and more explicitly for smaller government than George W. Bush. But I didn't know just how pathetic his act would become. After the Illinois GOP dumped its Senatorial nominee for Senate in 2004 over a personal non-scandal, they chose Keyes, of all people, to move in from out-of-state and get obliterated by Barack Obama.

Not getting the hint that his message was relevant in 1996-2000 but no longer, Keyes entered the GOP race in 2007, only to find out that Ron Paul already had part of his message (the good parts) and Huckabee the rest (the stupid, bad parts). Now, this pro-war neo-conservative tried to get the nomination of the Constitution Party - which has always been anti-war and isolationist. Fortunately, the CP has backed away from Keyes, who probably has yet to figure out that name recognition doesn't serve you if you are a laughingstock.

The CP nominated its 2004 VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin, instead. I have read several of Baldwin's columns and agree with a lot of them. And he has been a Ron Paul supporter. I hope all conservatives, and especially, Ron Paul supporters, unwilling to vote Libertarian will vote for Baldwin. Matthew Roberts writes, "as Chilton Williamson Jr. argues in his recent article “Time for a Multi-Party System,” there could be long-term gains (such as a “multiplicity of parties, representing a multiplicity of interests") in abandoning the two major parties, which have become a “broad and contradictory coalition of factions.” (Better said than done, but a sizeable defection is a start.)"

Labels: alan keyes, chuck baldwin, Constitution Party, elections, politics, third parties

  4:09 PM permanent link 0 comments

  McCain/Liberman, Clinton/Lieberman So suggests commenters of John Zmirak's post Nothing But the War at Taki: Joe Lieberman could run for VP for both parties. That would send a message that we have no choice.

(I'm still pulling for Clinton/Jay Rockefeller and McCain/Jeb Bush. That would really rub it in.)

Anyway, Zmirak article is about how conservatism is defined by support for the war. This was evident to me early on when Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani. In October 2004, I asked, "When is it appropriate for conservatives) to stop supporting Republicans? If John McCain gets nominated? Michael Bloomberg?"

If "conservatives" do vote for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, the question answers itself: conservatives will never stop supporting Republicans.

Labels: Conservatism, elections, Giuliani, Hillary, John McCain, Lieberman, politics

  12:52 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Projection "Bush Putin has eliminated or co-opted all other centers of political influence. There is a puppet legislature, a weak judiciary, and a neutered press. The Evangelical Russian Orthodox Church has become a tool of the state. Symbols of empire and the Cold War Soviet past, including smearing of dissenters as unpatriotic the anthem, have been restored. And, as in Cold War Soviet times, the leadership is constantly telling the people that they are threatened by foreign enemies— Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, the United States—as well as by internal extremists rebels." - The New Yorker

Everywhere I look, we Americans are saying bad things about the extremism, aggression, or human rights abuses of foreign countries. Meanwhile, at least two of the three leading Presidential candidates are war criminals who support an unprovoked invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq - but people are more angry at the third for being an "elitist," as if that's the bigger crime even if it were true. It's like we project onto others the evil that we don't want to see in ourselves.

Another example of this comes from Martin Marty:

William Franklin Graham famously called Islam a wicked and evil religion, but I don't think he called for its extinction through violence, as in war. Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, a wild politician, did call for the bombing of Mecca to shatter the Muslim center. Now, Parsley—as in Rod Parsley—is the flavor of the month among the controversial clergy being spotlighted in the camps of the three presidential campaigners. Parsley, pastor of Ohio's mega-est megachurch, twelve-thousand-member World Harvest Church in Columbus, calls for "destroying" Islam.

Parsley is most explicit in his well-selling Silent No More and in broadcasts to large and presumably assenting audiences. While Americans know that some who claim Allah would like to destroy Christian civilization, citizens often overlook the tit-for-tat or tat-for-tit (that is, "who started it?") calls for war from militants on both sides. As reported in Mother Jones (March 12), Parsley says there is a war and he wants bigger war, as America can only "fulfill its divine purpose" by seeing to it that Islam, "this false religion, is destroyed." Though he spells out no specific strategy, he writes things like, "We find now we have no choice. The time has come" to destroy "this anti-Christ religion," inspired by demons who spoke to Allah.

Shall some Muslims be spared—the moderates down the street or anywhere else, for example? No: "mainstream believers" in the "1,209 mosques" in America drink from the same well as do the extremists whom all citizens condemn. Screaming that he does not want to be "another screaming voice moving people to extremes," Parsley has plunged into presidential politics in the hope that he will find policies that will help "destroy" or lead to the "destruction" of Islam, the goal of his war.

It seems to be the most militant and bloodthirsty of Christians who are most condemnatory and afraid of Islam for being militant and bloodthirsty.

People on opposite ends of a conflict often have similar personalities and values - only their dogmatic beliefs are different, and it is the dogma that is the source of the conflict.

If liberal and Christian societies face a threat from Islam - whether through mass immigration or terrorism from extremists - this can be mitigated through defensive measures on our borders and coasts, and in immigration laws. But a Holy War against the world's 1 billion Muslims as a means for the United States to fulfill its "divine purpose?" This is the talk of fanatics. The more influence they have, the more understandable that Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. The Soviet nuclear deterrence kept the craziest anti-communists from getting elected and pushing the button. With neocon advisers and support from people like Parsley, what is to deter a President McCain from all-out war against Islamic states?

And how would we be any better than the terrorists we claim to be fighting?

Labels: Culture, politics, religion, war

  6:55 AM permanent link 0 comments

  An Exploratory Committee is for Exploring Bob Barr has set up an Exploratory Committee to gauge support for a possible run for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential election.

I was among the first to endorse Barr, for the same reasons Justin Raimondo mentions today.

That said, I hope this Exploratory Committee is just that - I hope it explores Barr's prospects and the best interests of the Libertarian Party. I hope Barr's people reach out to others running for the LP nomination - several of whom have been campaigning for over a year, and/or have been involved with the LP far longer, and/or are more ideologically "pure" - and earn their trust and support. A chaotic convention leading to an unknown as candidate is not what the LP needs at this point. I believe Barr has the record and profile to draw votes away from John McCain, ensuring his defeat, and prompt a revolt among pro-peace and small-government conservatives within the Republican Party. But if the LP can not, or will not, rally around him this year, he should gracefully withdraw before making any formal announcement. This will be better for his future than jumping full-throttle into the race and getting embarrassed at the Convention.

This is what Barr's Exploratory Committee should find out. How will other candidates and their supporters react to a "celebrity" candidate coming in at the last minute? A Barr run may attract Ron Paul Republicans to join the LP and take over the Convention, but if this alienates the "old-timers" it may well lead to a schism. The pro-peace, pro-liberty wing of the American public will need to put up a united front this year if it is to grow. I think Barr is the best one to lead the Ron Paul Revolution, and the LP the most appropriate organization for it if the Republican Party is no longer a viable option. But if a united front is impossible this year, Barr should probably "pay his dues" in the LP a little longer and make a run in 2012.

Labels: Bob Barr, elections, Libertarian Party, politics, Ron Paul

  10:00 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Ticket to the Ticket Here are the universities that Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the last nine elections attended. The Democrat is on the left, the Republican on the right. If I counted correctly, these 36 slots were filled by 23 different individuals.

2004: Yale, Boston College(law) v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: NC St., North Carolina v. Wyoming
2000: Harvard v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: Yale v. Wyoming
1996: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Kansas
vp: Harvard vs. Occidental
1992: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Yale
vp: Harvard vs. DePauw, Indiana (law)
1988: Swarthmore, Harvard (law) v. Yale
vp: Texas v DePauw, Indiana (law)
1984: Minnesota v. Eureka
vp: Fordham (law) v. Yale
1980: Naval Academy v. Eureka
VP: Minnesota v. Yale
1976: Naval Academy v. Michigan, Yale (law)
vp: Minnesota v. Kansas
1972: Northwestern (graduate) v. Duke (law)
vp: Yale vs. Johns Hopkins

Harvard is on a five-election streak (thanks to GW Bush's MBA); Yale has a nine-election streak. Before this, the trends are distorted a bit. For instance, Duke Law is represented in five elections, because Nixon was on the national ticket five times - twice for Veep, thrice for Prez. Other than that, however there is greater diversity in colleges (Goldwater and Truman didn't even degrees) until we go back to Harvard's FDR.

Anyway, John McCain attended the Naval Academy.
Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale Law.
Barack Obama attended Columbia and Harvard Law.

The Ivy League, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia (there are others, but are not represented), are represented in every election, except 1964, going back to 1928. 1924 also appears empty of Ivy Leaguers, but they were represented in every election down to 1900.

Clinton seems to have the advantage of the Yale streak, but Obama has the Harvard streak plus another Ivy League school to his credit. To be safe, McCain will probably get a Yalie as a running mate. Then again, he is a white man, and, while I haven't looked it up, I'm pretty sure white men have quite a lengthy streak in Presidential elections.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, Hilllary Clinton, John McCain, politics, presidents

  7:13 PM permanent link 1 comments

  Obama Was Right to Stay I suppose some people are upset about Barack Obama attending a church with a racially hostile preacher because, if a white Presidential candidate attended the church of a segregationist pastor, his career would be over.

I'm guessing that Obama initially chose Trinity Church in part because the networking opportunities would be good for his political career on Chicago's South Side. Should he have left the first time he heard extreme words or hyperbolic rhetoric? Or the hundredth time?

Why should it matter?

Leaving the church would have damaged friendships and created other problems for Obama - personal, and career-wise. White people leave churches in a huff all the time, but I don't think this is so in the black community. And even if one doesn't agree with anything said in the sermons, there are other aspects of church life that can retain a person's loyalty.

And besides, is racial resentment the only form of "hate" that is so un-PC that it deserves separation and public condemnation? What about when preachers announce their support of the war in the pulpit? Or some tax-and-redistribute scheme? Or some law against vice that will throw non-violent people in prison and ruin their lives? Any word from a pulpit that would empower the State is in fact a call for violence and coercion - which are grounded on hate, not love.

Imagine, in 2020, a white Democratic Presidential candidate was found to have attended an ultra-conservative evangelical church. Should he be asked to renounce his longtime pastor because the candidate differed with the pastor on the war? Why would this be different? It seems to me that to support the war is worse than anything Jeremiah Wright says or believes.

Unless your own conscience forces you to withdraw from one church after another because of differences with the pastor, then don't judge Obama. But leaving a church leads to broken friendships, disrupts a child's Sunday School education, and a whole lot of other hassles. It usually isn't worth it.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, politics, religion

  11:43 AM permanent link 0 comments

  For a Three-Party System America needs a third major political party. Not a stronger "protest" party, but one equally as popular and powerful as the two we have. Not because the Democratic and Republican Parties have failed - although they certainly have. Not to supplant one of those parties, although both of them deserve to die. Not because we need new and better ideas than what the Two Parties have allowed, although we do.

Four parties would be even better, five even, but we have to start somewhere.

The reason for a third major party begins with the Electoral College. Imagine three major-party nominees for President, none getting 40% of the vote. None getting a majority in the Electoral College. Elections thrown to the House of Representatives. Maybe the first-place guy in popular votes is second in Electoral votes. Maybe the #1 in both popular and Electoral votes is absolutely hated by 60% of the American people and 75% of Congress. Maybe the third-place guy throws his support to the second-place guy in exchange for getting appointed Secretary of State. (It's happened before...)

The result? The President, not being popularly elected, gets no "mandate" to get his legislative agenda implemented. He must govern along with the leaders of at least two of the three parties in Congress, or he'll lose one of them and see most of Congress against him. The age of the Imperial Presidency would draw to a close. Facing one hostile party, and one party that could turn hostile, Presidents would be at greater risk of impeachment than today, because impeachment wouldn't be seen as "overturning an election." After two or three Presidencies like this, the people may come to view the President as a manager, a ho-hum position lacking the power and prestige it holds today.

If congress was similarly divided - say, no party with fewer than 20% of the seats or more than 40% - then caucuses would become far more interesting. For a coalition of parties to become a majority, key committee posts would have to be given to the smaller party in the coalition. A third party would be a "check and balance" on the other two. A bill with "bi-partisan" support might still be blocked by the third. It is more likely that laws with expiration dates would not be renewed, and instead of agreeing to a new budget, Congress could only pass "continuing resolutions" at previous budget levels. Government would not grow.

Moreover, many members of Congress would themselves have normally gotten elected with a plurality, not a majority - or, perhaps, a run-off vote. They couldn't retain their seats by exploiting a couple of emotional issues and demonizing his opponent, because he would have to contend with two opponents - one of whom may agree with him on those issues but present himself as better on other issues. There wouldn't be as many "safe seats" and free rides in Congress.

Of course, I have my preferences of what the agenda of this third party would be. But that matters little, because as it gathers more prominence ideology would take a backseat to winning elections. And it's also true that a Reichstag Fire event, like 9-11, could frighten the people and all parties into "supporting the Commander-in-Chief," but his window of goodwill would close more quickly in a three-party system than it has with George W. Bush.

The more un-democratic the government is, the less likely the people are to support or trust it, which means it is less likely to try to do too much. Passing a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise the people is an absurd idea. By turning majorities into pluralities and coalitions, the very presence of a third-party would make the federal government less effective, which would be good for liberty.

Labels: elections Congress, political theory, politics, the Presidency

  8:30 AM permanent link 0 comments