Ken Starr has Bush the Elder to blame

Ken Starr was demoted from President to Chancellor at Baylor University for its handling of sexual assault accusations against members of the football team.

I haven't read the independent investigative report that led to this. My guess is Starr took a hands-off approach to athletics as something beyond his expertise. As President, he was responsible, but may not have been morally culpable. That's why he was allowed to keep his tenured professorship.

Still, he must wonder how it came to this. He should be on the Supreme Court. Instead, he'll be remembered as the out-of-control independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton's sex life, and overseer of a university that put winning ahead of justice for women.

And the only reason he had either job was because he wasn't on the Supreme Court.

He was well on his way, but President George H.W. Bush failed him.

Here's what happened. In 1990, Justice William Brennan retired. Several people were high on Clarence Thomas. There was already a black Justice sitting, Thurgood Marshall. Bush's appointment of Thomas would have confounded liberal opponents by giving the court two black seats, and thereby claiming that the quality of the legal mind, not race, was the main factor. 

But Bush passed on Thomas that year. And he passed on Starr, who clerked for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, had been a federal appeals judge, and was the sitting Solicitor General. Bush chose the potentially less controversial David Souter instead. Souter became part of the Court's "liberal" wing.

Marshall retired the next year. Bush finally appointed Thomas, giving opponents ammunition that he was appointed only because he was black. The Anita Hill hearings were a result. I don't think they would have happened the previous year.

Ken Starr could then have filled the Marshall vacancy.

But Bush wanted no fuss either time. Souter was safer than Starr and Thomas in 1990 because he wasn't as well known. And in 1991, Thomas was "safer" than Starr because Bush felt he had to nominate a black person.

If Bush had appointed Thomas in 1990 and Starr in 1991, the Court would have become more solidly conservative, somebody else would have investigated Clinton, and somebody else would have become President of Baylor University.

Maybe things would been worse. Maybe Starr would have been ill-suited for the Court. But I suspect that's probably where he most belonged and where he probably would have done the least harm.

When Headlines Lie

One big pet peeve is headlines that lie. I don't mind sensationalized headlines. But I hate it when the story says the opposite of the headline.

For instance... "Patriots fans blast Robert Kraft, Tom Brady over Donald Trump endorsement."

I knew that Brady talked of his friendship with Trump last football season and wore a "Make America Great Again" cap, but retracted his "endorsement" a couple of days later. I also knew that Kraft had made at least one cameo on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. 

But I didn't hear of a new, official endorsement from either. I clicked to read the story.

Turns out, "neither Brady nor Kraft officially endorsed Trump."

The linked story of Kraft's relationship with Trump even has the sub-headline, "Don't call it an endorsement, but Robert Kraft really likes Donald Trump." The story goes on to say that Kraft doesn't like to discuss politics but was very appreciative of Trump's support when his wife died.

So...

• Kraft and Brady are friends with Trump. That's not news. Rich and famous people have rich and famous friends. No reasonable person would hold the mere friendship against them.
• Neither has formally endorsed Trump.
• Fox Sports writes about voter reaction to Brady's and Kraft's endorsements of Trump, which they never made.

I understand trivial, filler news pieces. I understand biased news.

But dishonest headlines to attract readers is unacceptable.

Do Twists of Fate Make A Difference?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 1969, Diane Keaton auditioned for Woody Allen's play Play It Again, Sam. The problem was, Allen was to be her romantic counterpart, and she was noticeably taller than he is. She did get the part, got a Tony nomination for it, and Hollywood came calling.

What if she didn't get the part? Would the world have changed?

Well, yes and no. Keaton was talented enough that she would have gotten another part in some other play, probably would have received a Tony nomination, and again Hollywood would have come calling. Maybe it would have happened one or two years later, and maybe she would have in other movies than the ones she did. Maybe she wouldn't have done so many Woody Allen films, but maybe she would have been in equally-good or better ones.

Life would have turned out a little different for Diane Keaton, and for Hollywood. But not too different.

VERY URGENT: Congress Rushing 'Deal'

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/very-urgent-congress-rushing-deal

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." - Former Speaker, now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy said it. Republicans have mocked her endlessly for it. Some of them have even said, "We need to read our bills."

A few of those even pledged to sponsor our Read the Bills Act. But they've been "too busy" to make progress with us.

Instead, the Republican leadership plans to do some really bad things -- in a big damn hurry. If Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and company have their way, we'll have to wait till the bill is passed to see what's in it.

When it comes to legislation, "Speed kills."

WE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DEAL AND ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS.

And you should demand more time.

Because of the urgency, you need to call.
AND
So that your numbers are counted, and your arguments considered, you must write.

For the writing part, I went to DownsizeDC.org's "Cap the Debt" campaign.

I've sent letters to my reps using this campaign in recent weeks. But the issues at stake have changed, and my representatives need to hear from me now, more than ever. The hard-wired letter begins, "Do NOT raise the debt ceiling." Here are the personal comments I added...

Instead, please introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act." You can find the legislative text here: http://www.downsizedc.org/rtba-legislation

John Boehner and the Republicans promised, in their 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," that they would allow the public sufficient time to read bills before lawmakers voted on them. "We will give all representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote," the pledge said.

It is wrong to rush passage this so-called "deal" until there's been time for you to...

* comprehend its details
* receive feedback from your constituents and counselors on how it works
* engage in debate and amend where necessary

It is nearly impossible to do all of that in a mere three days. But we're not even going to get that. The promise will be broken. Typical.

Clearly, Congress needs a law, not an easily dismissible rule, which requires them to provide that kind of time -- seven days would be better. The Read the Bills Act requires it. And it deserves your support, if you really want to "change the culture in Washington."

I'm watching closely. I care deeply about the debt ceiling vote, and I expect you to oppose this plan. And then, I'll be looking for news that you've introduced the Read the Bills Act, without watering it down. I'll know then you really mean your rhetoric, unlike the Republican leadership.

END LETTER

You can use what I wrote, or write your own personal letter using the Educate the Powerful System.

Then, I called. And this is what I said...

Vote NO on the debt ceiling deal, if for no other reason than that legislation should be read and debated IN DETAIL before it gets a vote.

Then, I "tweeted" my "phone script," and I encourage you to do the same!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

VERY URGENT: Congress Rushing 'Deal'

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/very-urgent-congress-rushing-deal

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." - Former Speaker, now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy said it. Republicans have mocked her endlessly for it. Some of them have even said, "We need to read our bills."

A few of those even pledged to sponsor our Read the Bills Act. But they've been "too busy" to make progress with us.

Instead, the Republican leadership plans to do some really bad things -- in a big damn hurry. If Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and company have their way, we'll have to wait till the bill is passed to see what's in it.

When it comes to legislation, "Speed kills."

WE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DEAL AND ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS.

And you should demand more time.

Because of the urgency, you need to call.
AND
So that your numbers are counted, and your arguments considered, you must write.

For the writing part, I went to DownsizeDC.org's "Cap the Debt" campaign.

I've sent letters to my reps using this campaign in recent weeks. But the issues at stake have changed, and my representatives need to hear from me now, more than ever. The hard-wired letter begins, "Do NOT raise the debt ceiling." Here are the personal comments I added...

Instead, please introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act." You can find the legislative text here: http://www.downsizedc.org/rtba-legislation

John Boehner and the Republicans promised, in their 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," that they would allow the public sufficient time to read bills before lawmakers voted on them. "We will give all representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote," the pledge said.

It is wrong to rush passage this so-called "deal" until there's been time for you to...

* comprehend its details
* receive feedback from your constituents and counselors on how it works
* engage in debate and amend where necessary

It is nearly impossible to do all of that in a mere three days. But we're not even going to get that. The promise will be broken. Typical.

Clearly, Congress needs a law, not an easily dismissible rule, which requires them to provide that kind of time -- seven days would be better. The Read the Bills Act requires it. And it deserves your support, if you really want to "change the culture in Washington."

I'm watching closely. I care deeply about the debt ceiling vote, and I expect you to oppose this plan. And then, I'll be looking for news that you've introduced the Read the Bills Act, without watering it down. I'll know then you really mean your rhetoric, unlike the Republican leadership.

END LETTER

You can use what I wrote, or write your own personal letter using the Educate the Powerful System.

Then, I called. And this is what I said...

Vote NO on the debt ceiling deal, if for no other reason than that legislation should be read and debated IN DETAIL before it gets a vote.

Then, I "tweeted" my "phone script," and I encourage you to do the same!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Who's to Blame for The Debt Ceiling Mess?

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

First, the facts:

• In February, 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress raised the debt ceiling to a level expected to be reached in the Spring or Summer of 2011
• When they lost the November elections, largely due to the anti-spending Tea Party, it was clear they would lose the power to raise the debt ceiling again
• They had the entire lame-duck session to raise the debt ceiling until 2013 or longer, or abolish it altogether
• They did not

Every large organization employs analysts to think down the road. For instance, when NFL teams sign players to long-term contracts, they account not only for salary cap implications of the current season, but also for future seasons.

Wasn't there ONE Democratic consultant thinking down the road? Wasn't there anyone smart enough to alert President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and House Speaker Pelosi them that they'd lose leverage on the debt issue?

And why aren't Republican leaders calling the Democrats on this? Why aren't they saying that if Democrats really thought it was important to raise the debt ceiling further, they could have done so when they had the chance? Why are Republicans actually allowing themselves to be blamed for this mess?

The Jonathan Edwards Rule, Revised

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In July, 2009, I wrote of The Jonathan Edwards Rule. Named after the singer-songwriter who penned the early 1970's hit "Sunshine," the rule is a line from that song:

"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."

At the time, the adulterous affair of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was in the news.

These days, it is Representative Anthony Weiner's communications with young women over Twitter that is causing a ruckus.

The System Makes No Sense

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

But the economic disaster of the past three years has caused many others to question The System.

They are learning about how the banking system really works, and how the Federal Reserve Board operates in secret. They are questioning bailouts of the fat cats and "stimulus" programs that were nothing but a series of pork-barrel projects.

When they learn that The System relies on money being printed out of thin air, they realize that the System itself "makes no sense."

The Changing Conservative Movement

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

They could learn something from the Ron Paul movement itself. It encompasses people from atheist anarchists to Nevada prostitutes to college students to fundamentalist Christians such as 2008 Constitution Party Presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin.

That's inclusive, because the Constitution is inclusive. There is, after all, nothing exclusive by acknowledging that Congress should declare war before it is fought, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and is impoverishing the people, that the federal government has no business creating health care, welfare, and education programs, or that it has no business making marriage laws, drug laws, or abortion laws.

Why I Didn't Vote

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I'm not among those libertarians who rules out voting altogether. Some reject voting because we shouldn't vote for our oppressors. As for me, however, I think it is totally appropriate for libertarians to take control and the government and ram through budget cuts and repeal bad laws.

But the vote isn't everything.

The "Lack of Civility"

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

But this "lack of civility" did not originate just with the Right, even though people whose memory spans go only as far back as the rise of Rush Limbaugh may think so. Those who criticized absolute Presidential and bureaucratic power over the economy and domestic policy have, since FDR, been smeared as uncompassionate supporters of the "free market" who are determined to starve children to death.

In every instance I see since FDR, those who promoted federal Statism - the concentration of power in the federal government and especially the Presidency - has been the first to smear opponents.

Why blackmail should be legal

Trying to make sense of this AP report:

The husband of Sen. John Ensign’s former mistress made “exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits” through an attorney, an aide to the Nevada Republican said Friday.

In a statement, Ensign spokesman Tory Mazzola said the demands from an attorney for Doug Hampton were made within the past month.

“The demands were referred to Senator Ensign’s legal counsel, who is handling the matter going forward,” the statement said.

Mazzola did not name the attorney nor immediately respond to requests for additional details.

Hampton’s lawyer, Daniel Albregts, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The FBI in Las Vegas and Las Vegas police said Friday they were not investigating the matter.

The headline says Hampton tried to "extort" money from Ensign. "Extort" is a strong word, which I associate with mobsters demanding "protection" money from neighborhood businesses. This sounds more like the commonly-understood definition of blackmail: the willingness to keep a shameful secret for a price.

Ensign decided not to pay the price, and came public with his adultery before Hampton broke it to the media - even though this has harmed his political career. I don't care one way or the other what happened, but it seems odd that Hampton is being viewed as having done something unethical and possibly illegal. Blackmail is actually perfectly legitimate:

• It gives the relatively powerless some leverage against exploitive, shameful conduct of the powerful.
• It also gives the powerful the opportunity to maintain a healthy separation between their public and private lives. Purchasing their right to privacy is better than having no privacy at all
  
• In cases like this, it gives the aggrieved party, Hampton, a chance to receive compensation

I certainly hope the FBI doesn't investigate. Blackmail doesn't constitute a violation of rights and therefore can not be a crime. To the extent there are federal or state laws against it, they should be repealed.

Otherwise, families like the Hamptons who are used and abused by powerful people are denied their one best option to receive fair compensation.

Where's the apology to A-Rod?

The famous Letterman joke was intended to be about the reputation of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of two adult public figures: Alex Rodriguez and Bristol Palin.

It was allegedly perceived by some, like their mother Sarah, to be a joke about Alex Rodriguez having sex with her younger daughter, Willow Palin, a 14 year-old girl.

That is, the joke was perceived by some to make A-Rod out to be a child molester.

That's about the worst thing you can imply about a man, in a joke or any other context.

Being made fun of for a scandalous personal life may not please A-Rod, but he understands it comes with the territory. Being accused of being a child sex offender, however, is a low blow and doesn't come with the territory.

Think of it this way: what if, during the Lewinsky scandal, a late night talk show host made a joke about Clinton having sex with a well-known 14 year-old child actress of the day?

Would it be perceived more as demeaning to the girl, or as a vicious, "gone too far" assault on Clinton's character? Clearly, the latter.

Yet, those who believe the joke was intended to be about having sex with a 14 year-old, don't seem to think that A-Rod should be owed an apology as well. I haven't followed this closely, but no one seems to bring it up.

Letterman apologized to the Palins and all who were outraged by the joke, but not to A-Rod.

Perhaps because if Letterman apologizes to A-Rod, he'd feel reluctant to make jokes about him in the future.

By remaining silent, A-Rod is the only one who's conducted himself through this with class.

Souter, Spector, Kemp

Recent news items . . .

Justice Souter retires

Souter's appointment in 1990 was a defining mistake of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. Not the biggest one, not the one that cost him re-election, but a defining one.

How so?

When William Brennan retired in 1990, with Thurgood Marshall still sitting, Bush could have appointed Clarence Thomas to the Court and so have two African-Americans on the bench at the same time! The implicit message: No tokenism here, folks! I'm appointing Thomas because he's the best person for the job - even though African-Americans are now over-represented on the Court!

It would have left Democrats scrambling.

Instead, Bush replaced the white Brennan with the non-descript white guy Souter. Then the next year, when Marshall retired, Bush decided to fill the "token black seat" with Thomas. A political uproar ensued.

It turned into a farce, with Senate liberals essentailly railing against affirmative action and exploiting the stereotype of the oversexed black man for poltical purposes.

Thomas hasn't been able to live it down since, with many on the Left thinking still today he was unqualified. (Even though he did have the credentials, and from what I've read from their decisions, he's probably the most competent of the right-wing Justices.)

Anyway, the fact that Bush could have nominated Thomas in 1990, and then Souter (or someone else) in 1991, instead of the other way around, is a testament to his ineffectiveness as a party leader.

As to Souter's legacy, whatever. When the federal government demands more power, the Justices, whether Left or Right, gives it the green light nine times out of ten. So what the Court does hardly matters to me anymore. All responsibility for the bad laws the Court upholds belongs to Congress anyway. It is there we must focus attention.

Arlen Spector defects to Democrats

Well, he's pro-abortion. And that's the only difference between the two parties, so it makes sense.

Jack Kemp dies

I once was drawn to Kemp's vision of "market-based" solutions to America's social problems, enough so that I was a Republican in the 1990's. Although I've moved away from that, I never questioned Kemp's sincerity or intentions. He always seemed like a decent guy.

Get Rid of the Prayer

There is apparently a concern that Rick Warren is going to actually pray to a God he believes in at Obama's inaugural.

And that this might be offensive to some people.

Here's the problem:

1. A prayer to a specific God is offensive to some people; but
2. A prayer to no God in particular is an empty charade.

So what's the point? Why bother anymore?

And if these types of prayers are considered unconstitutional at the local level, at high school football games, for instance, why are they not unconstitutional at the federal level? (After all, the First Amendment as written applies to Congress, and says nothing about local jurisdictions.)

And in any case, evangelical Christians of all people shouldn't care one whit if there's a prayer said at an inauguration. I could be wrong, but I don't recall in the New Testament any practice of, or endorsement of, ceremonial prayers. Jesus seemed to indicate instead that prayers were a private affair, to be said behind closed doors.

So Obama should have thought this through beforehand and canceled the whole deal. He may have been criticized, but he'll get criticized no matter what he does.

Another Hopeful Sign From The '08 Presidential Election

I don't know how Democrats think the way they do.

• They whine about corporations, and then insist that the federal government bail out those same corporations.
• They complain about environmental destruction, but then when the GDP goes south, they insist on "stimulus" packages because they can't conceive of economic growth apart from mindless consumer spending - which encourages the very environmental destruction they decry.
• Their "muscular liberalism" in foreign policy is not meaningfully different from neoconservatism.
• The one and only "freedom of choice" they believe in is a woman's right to have an abortion.
  
• They talk as if Bush is the worst President ever, and then cave to his demands, from warrantless spying to giving him a $700 billion blank check.

In comparison, one might actually see some logic among Republican voters. They want the government to have absolute power in protecting them from the "bad guys," but if they see nothing inherently wrong with a particular activity, they would rather be left alone. Republicans hate people different from themselves and would like to see most of them jailed or killed. Nothing good comes from the Republican agenda, but at least you know where they're coming from. And to some degree, they do want government out of their lives. Democrats, however, believe that whatever isn't prohibited ought to be subsidized. They rage against the "injustice" perpetrated not by people, but by systems, but have no constructive solution in mind aside from empowering the very same systems they're unhappy with. Their complaints with society are not as simple-minded as Republican complaints, but they are equally immature.

As a result, elections between these two ugly alternatives often boil down to issues other than policy.

By the end of the Presidential primary season, two things were clear:

1. John McCain was a more likable media presence than Hillary Clinton.
2. Barack Obama was a more likable media presence than John McCain.

It is apparent the Democratic Party agreed. McCain, for all his faults, would probably have beaten Hillary Clinton, who came across as a priggish schoolmarm, a left-wing Church Lady, while McCain, though a complete fanatic and/or dunderhead on policy and detestable in his personal life, at least knew how to handle the media.

But Barack Obama knew how to handle the media, and the public, better than McCain.

(I've come across some information as to how Obama did it, but I haven't actually read it yet and therefore won't share the link with you. At first glance, however, this information confirms my suspicions, and I'll give you a hint: enter Milton Erickson in your preferred search engine.)

But whether he did it by natural talent or training, Obama proved the necessity of likability and good manners in today's politics, and that's a positive sign. The dirtier McCain's campaign got, the better Obama's numbers improved. And there's a trend behind this.

Yes, 2004 may have been an exception. Bush II was riding the coattails of 9/11 and a frightened public. Kerry had voted for the worst of Bush's agenda, including the Iraq War, and couldn't convincingly propose better alternatives.

In 2000, however, the Bush campaign had better manners, if only because of Al Gore's appalling sighs in the first debate.

And in 1996 and 92, the Clinton campaign had better manners that Dole and Bush I, if for no other reason than that Dole and Bush I called out Clinton on his "character."

To call somebody else out on their poor personal behavior is the epitome of bad manners. Demagogic and illogical attack ads on matters of policy is one thing, finger-wagging about "character" is quite another.

And the fact is, Obama had tons more to finger-wag about McCain's record and personal indiscretions than vice-versa, but he refrained from doing so.

He also kicked McCain's ass in the election.

Obama's subsequent decisions and appointments leave a lot to be desired. He may very well be as bad as the worst of the self-aggrandizing, freedom-hating presidents. But, in addition to his opposition to the Iraq War and the willingness of the American people to vote for a "person of color," I'm glad Obama was elected if for no other reason that it showed the American people are disgusted with smear campaigns.

Obama generally showed good manners throughout the election season. That is what I hope will be duplicated in all future elections.

Why I'm Voting for Bob Barr

There is no good reason to vote for Obama or McCain.

And not voting at all will tell "Them" you're happy with whatever happens, even if your intention is to send a message telling Them you don't recognize the legitimacy of the elections at all. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. I choose to do what I think is the most constructive thing with my vote.

Although Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney seem to be in agreement about the Four Points and the Big Bailout, each candidate represents a different "message" being sent to the Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, a vote for the Green Party's McKinney isn't telling the Republicans to repent over the Patriot Act, it is rather a message to Democrats to shape-up on corporate America and the environment. Nobody will say that McKinney "cost McCain the election," only that she drew votes away from Obama. And if Obama wins, which he probably will, those votes will be meaningless.

Whereas, the media will at least be aware that Bob Barr defected from the Republican to the Libertarian Party on the issue of civil liberties. They will also interpret a vote for Barr as a vote taken away from McCain.

A vote for Nader will be interpreted as a vote stolen from Obama, primarily because of the Bailout and civil liberties.

A vote for Chuck Baldwin will be interpreted as a vote stolen from McCain, primarily because of immigration and abortion.

Any other candidate on the ballot, or any write-in candidate, will be considered even more fringe and will not be mentioned at all.

For me, Nader is tempting, for reasons Justin Raimondo outlined. My state, like Raimondo's, seems strongly Democrat this year. A vote for Nader would be a protest vote against Obama especially on these issues of war, civil liberties, and the Bailout. Then again, it may, like McKinney, be viewed as sending a message to Obama from the "far left" to over-regulate and over-tax the economy. That's not a message I want to send.

Likewise, Baldwin is tempting. He's good on war, the Federal Reserve, and several other things. At the same time, it seems he goes overboard on immigration. I believe that labor-for-wages, and all other economic exchanges, should be unregulated and employers should not be forced to serve as tax agents or immigration officers. If immigration is a problem, it should be addressed at our boarders, coasts, and airports, and employers shouldn't be blamed for failures of the federal government. Also, while I disagree with Roe v. Wade and believe it served more to enhance the power of the federal government rather than individual liberty, I still believe abortion to be a matter between the mother, the abortionist, their respective consciences, and God rather than a matter of police investigation and criminal prosecution.

A lot of people have piled on the Bob Barr campaign and Bob Barr the person. But I will vote for him:

• I look at Barr's issues and, although some things could be elaborated on more fully, unlike the other campaigns I find nothing disagreeable.
• I endorsed Barr from the beginning, and even if the campaign so far hasn't lived up to hopes, this still seems to be the best tactical and principled use of my vote.
  
• A vote for Barr would contribute to McCain's landslide defeat without voting for Obama, bringing on the reformation or demise of the Republican Party. We should maximize non-Obama, anti-McCain vote totals from the "right" to force Washington to pay attention to issues of concern to the small-government movement.
  
• A vote for Barr would help increase the possibility that no President is elected with a minority of the popular vote. Better the President starts off in a weakened position; it's good for liberty.
  
• If by some miracle Barr was actually elected, he would actually have the experience and network infrastructure to actually form an Administration, something I wouldn't expect from other third-party nominees.
  
• He's way, way better than Obama or McCain.
• Although not voting may be an option, it still seems weird and hypocritical for one to write so much on the elections and not spend any time actually voting.
  

Script For McCain Ad

Longtime readers of this blog know I despise John McCain and do not want him to become President. But here's an idea for a McCain ad, that illustrates a point. A rough draft:

Plain background, John McCain speaking to the camera: In 2000, George W. Bush won the Presidency because he ran a better campaign than Al Gore. Whether or not Bush actually won that election legitimately, the sad fact is that if Gore wasn't such a pompous ass it shouldn't have even been close.

In 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected, despite having one of the worst records of a first-term President ever. And that's because, again, he and his operatives ran a better campaign than did John Kerry, whose biggest downfall was being John Kerry. Even if you believe Ohio and the Electoral College was stolen for Bush, no one disputes that Bush won the popular vote in yet another election in which he should have been trounced.

Don't you wish, in retrospect, that Gore had defeated Bush? Or that Kerry had defeated Bush?

Don't we all?

What does that say about these campaigns?

Barack Obama has run a better campaign than me. He's ahead in the polls. He comes across as more likable than me, which is why I was hoping Hillary would be nominated - I'm more likable than she is.

But remember that Bush was more likable than Gore, who had a wealth more knowledge and experience. And Bush, despite showing signs of dementia, still came across as more likable than Kerry.

So let's concede that Obama is a better campaigner and more likable than me. What does that say? I'm still more experienced, and I think I'm pretty smart and knowledgeable.

Indeed, our entire country is screwed up because victory goes to the people with the more attractive personalities and more effective campaign ads, not to the people with experience and competence.

So vote for me, John McCain. I may be a horrible campaigner, but I would make a great President.

Show McCain photo, with generic deep-voice male voiceover Vote John McCain, because since Obama seems to be better, he's probably worse.

McCain voiceover: I'm John McCain and I think this message sucked and will backfire, which is all the more reason to vote for me.

My point? Election campaigns rarely have to do with electing the right person, and more to do with fooling enough people. I'm suggesting this commercial for McCain because it would at least get to this truth.

The Case Against The Two Parties

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Imagine an alternate universe in which . . . white supremacists win both the Democratic and Republican nominations for President.
[ . . .]
If you found yourself in this alternative universe, and are a marginally decent person, you would not vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. Not voting at all is more legitimate than voting for either one. Your vote implies your consent or approval, and if you are a decent person, you would withhold it, and all arguments that you should vote for the "lesser of two evils" would sound ridiculous to you. After all, your vote is far more likely to be uncounted or miscounted through error or fraud than to be the deciding vote.
[ . . .]
[T]he Democrats and Republicans do share values that are nearly as repugnant as racism would be.

On the Lottery and Third Parties

How's this for an Election Day Strategy?

1. Today, when you have time to plan, estimate how long it would take to vote, how much it will take out of your day. Perhaps the polling place is next door; perhaps you live in the country and you have to drive. Maybe the only time you can go is after work, when it will be most crowded and there will be lines. In any case, rely on past experience, or, if you've never voted, ask someone who has. For myself, I'm estimating it will be 20 minutes.

2. Select a day before Election Day when you can spare the same number of minutes that you expect you would need to vote (eg, in my case, 20 minutes) by working on a project to improve your life in some small way, preferably by saving money or making money. The tasks I'm talking about can range from clipping coupons to reading an article on improving your resume, to working an extra amount of time if you're self-employed, to making a maintenance repair that, if left neglected, will cost you money. The project you choose to do is up to you, but it should be economically beneficial in some way.

3. Then, estimate how much money your efforts have saved you, or will earn you.

4. Pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment! You may be tempted to set aside more time like this.

5. On Election Day, instead of going to the polling place to vote, go to your nearest convenience store and, using the estimated amount of money you saved or earned doing your project, purchase lottery tickets.

Even if you purchase just one ticket on the game with the biggest jackpot, you have made a far more rational decision, and increased your chances of financial freedom and a better quality of life, than anything you might have done in the polling booth. This is true even in battleground states; your vote is far more likely to go uncounted or miscounted by error or fraud than it has any chance of determining the outcome. Your vote will not be a factor in who wins, let alone what decisions they will ultimately make.

I'm putting this idea "out there" for others to pick up and run with if they choose (though credit and a link back would be appreciated!). There is something to be said for this strategy: what if most people were persuaded, actually did take a positive action step or two in their own life, and played the lottery instead of voted? What if, on Election Day, only one million people cast votes nationwide, while 130 million others bought lottery tickets, many for the first time in their lives?

Talk about a crisis of legitimacy! Imagine a President facing the nation knowing that more than 99% of the people believe he's a ridiculous person who has no right whatsoever to do anything that may impact their lives?

And the advantage of buying a lottery ticket (as opposed to staying home and doing nothing) is that it wouldn't be evidence of apathy, which non-voting is perceived to be. Buying a lottery ticket on Election Day, especially if one never buys it on on any other day, would create a statistical spike that would provide information to the political class, which is: we can't be bothered to waste our time on people like you, and playing the lottery makes more sense than believing we can impact your corrupt and rigged system.

But here's a problem. Personally, I've never been spent any money on lotteries. If I'm not competent to earn millions of dollars, I'd be more likely to squander that amount in lottery winnings, and end up more miserable and unhappy than before. So I'm uncomfortable with my own proposal, even though I can't argue with the logic.

And here's another problem. I agree with the the Four Points of the Green, Nader, Libertarian, and Constitution parties. It is reminiscent of what I wrote four years ago, that the third parties are:

1. For peace.

2. For the Bill of Rights.

3. For balanced budgets.

4. Against crony capitalism - against the web of laws, regulations, taxes, and subsidies that favor corporations over small business and the people.

To vote for one of the four "minor" party candidates is to vote against the System, and to vote for the Four Points.

And here's the math:

• To "hold your nose" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" will mean you will have a less than one-in-120 million chance of determining the election.
• To win the "big jackpot" is something like a 1-in-20 million chance, though that depends on the particular game in your area.
• To vote for a third-party candidate will mean roughly, on average, a one-in-100,000 chance of increasing its influence and the likelihood of attaining "major party status" in your state.
  

To vote for the Republican or Democrat changes nothing. To choose the lottery option is logically compelling, but would require a mass, organized effort to even be newsworthy. But every vote for a third-party candidate builds momentum for that party and decreases the lifespan of the the Two-Party Monopoly. It is perhaps the only approach that satisfies both personal satisfaction and improves the odds of a better future.

All that said, taking the time before Election Day to improve your life would probably be a good idea, even if you don't choose the lottery option on Election Day.