3/27/2008

Sen Nelson's Right On!

Sen Bill Nelson of Florida unveiled a sensible plan on the floor of the Senate today to upgrade our election processes. His plan will provide for six regional primary election days, all between March and June. Election dates will rotate between the regions every presidential year, so eventually every state will be part of the early-voting region.

The two-year presidential race we've seen this time is ridiculous by most people's standards of tolerance. There is no real advantage for a race to take such time. In fact, it disadvantages voters. Last year we should have been focusing on local races. Instead of learning about local candidates all we heard in the news were updates about presidential candidates. Many letters to editors complained about that throughout the year.

The only advantage to early caucus and primary dates is that those states receive news coverage and a little notoriety for being early. Yes, some local businesses make money as campaigns trail through their towns. That doesn't include very many towns and businesses, and those campaigns would trail through those towns regardless of when the elections were held. Results in early-voting states rarely have any bearing on the eventual outcomes of elections, so where's the real advantage to the people?

Nelson also proposed grants to states to help develop internet voting systems, as well as systems to allow everyone to vote by absentee ballot. I'm not sure I agree with that last one. There are many disabled voters, traveling business people, and members of the armed forces that cannot get to their polls on election days. I agree that these people should be allowed absentee voting.

Millions more every year, though, are simply too lazy to rise from their easy chairs to exercise their right to vote. They probably comprise 96% of those continually complaining about the government they refuse to be part of! If they're too lazy to inconvenience themselves only twice a year to vote, do you really believe they'll be willing to think through major issues and cast wise ballots? In addition, there would be a lot of wiggle room for fraud in an open absentee ballot system. It would also place considerable increased burden on local and county election workers who already work on election days for less than minimum wage.

Sen Nelson also proposes abolishing the antiquated electoral college. In his words, "The goal is simple: one person, one vote". Currently if a candidate wins the majority of citizens' votes in a state the Congressmen of that state should cast their ballots in the electoral college for that winner. Nationally, the candidate that receives the most electoral college votes is deemed the winner, even if their opponent received the majority of citizens' votes. In 2000 Al Gore won the most popular votes, but Bush received the most electoral college votes. The people's voice was overridden by the electoral college.

Congressmen are not legally bound to cast their electoral college votes according to the people's wishes. I suppose our founding fathers wanted to assure they could override citizens' choice if they had real grievances with the winning candidate. As though their voice was more important than that of the populace. Abolishing the electoral college would require legislation separate from the bulk of Nelson's proposal, as it would require a Constitutional change.

All in all, I give Sen Nelson a hearty, "Hoorah!", for taking this bull by the horns.

3/26/2008

McCain - A Moral Obligation?

On the campaign stump today in California John McCain said he thinks we have a moral obligation to remain in Iraq. He previously declared we should stay there until we have achieved victory.

As to achieving victory, I remember Bush claiming victory many moons ago from an American aircraft carrier. If we haven't really achieved victory yet then it's only because Republicans kept moving the goal line. Hey, Haliburton and other major Republican contributors are making too much money there. Why quit now, right?

Regarding the issue of our moral obligation, there was a time when I agreed that we needed to stay in Iraq. We gave them almost two years to develop a constitution. It took our forefathers only a couple months, and they had no examples to follow. We've allowed them five years to build a reasonably sound government structure. Our founding leaders had that in place before Georgie (with aid of the French) beat the Redcoats.

We can train a soldier for sixteen weeks, throw him into battle, and he can compete with the best anywhere in the world. Iraqis have had five years to develop a strong police and military force. They don't even have to raise capital to buy their equipment. U.S. taxpayers are giving it all to them, to the detriment of our own economy and military. I've often wondered if they're stupid, lazy, or do they just not care enough?

Now Republicans claim we must stay in Iraq until they have a strong economy. They had a stronger economy before GW came along. It only takes three to six months to open a corner "mom and pop" shop here in the U.S. It shouldn't take them that long, since, again, the U.S. taxpayers are paying for the assistance the government allows them to start businesses.

I'm assuming all the above is true, since I learned it from our government spokespersons. And we all know they wouldn't lie to us. No, Mr. McCain, we have given the Iraqis more than ample time. We have paid our moral obligations to them in full. The only reasons for remaining there any longer are so staff officers can secure further promotions and your party's large contributors can secure billions more in profits.

2/14/2008

Whooptydo - Romney Endorses McCain

After McCain has the nomination every Repug in the country will endorse him. This is just a ploy that lets Romney say, "See, I supported you before you were the nominee." It really isn't much support, since Romney had very few delegates to offer.

These guys are such transparent liars. It was only a few weeks ago that Romney was referring to McCain as a dinosaur of the past along with many other unflattering references. Now he adores the guy. Now there's a classic flip-flopping $3 harlot for you!

2/13/2008

Hillary May Have A Point

There's no doubt that Obama is a great orator. He can really get a crowd thinking forward. Clinton, though, says he is only a talker and not a doer.

What is the truth? What has he ever done legislatively? I don't mean what legislation has he sponsored. Any Senator can sign on as a sponsor (if accepted by the author). What has he actually authored or co-authored? Does anyone really know his true track record?

Frankly I'm still on the fence and I would really like to know. For that matter, I think we should look long, hard, and detailed look at the records of all the candidates.

1/30/2008

McCain As Commander-In-Chief

McCain claimed during the debate tonight that he would be a better Commander In Chief than Romney. He cited support from 4 Secretaries of State and many retired and active generals as his reasoning to believe that. That only tells me he's in the hip pocket of the military establishment. It is certainly no proof he would be a good Commander In Chief.

Actually most of the people he said supported him depend on war to secure faster promotions. If they're the ones supporting him, and as he previously stated that he believes the U.S. could be in Iraq and the Middle East
up to 100 years, it tells me he's more of a war-monger than someone that could and would lead us to victory.

My Thoughts On Tax Rebates

What should Congress do about the perceived recession? First, stop promoting a recession. It's a hoax the Repubs have perpetrated by the Federal Reserve to push the Democratic Congress into accepting a drastic action. The Democratic leadership, also wanting a easy way out and knowing little about the American economy, have believed it.

Together they fed it to the press, who now perpetuates it almost daily. What a person believes in their heart they will become. So too a nation. When people believe there's a recession then, in fact, a recession will be the result.

Times are tough, but not desperate, except for a few. My wife and I could certainly use the money, even though we're both still employed. However, I don't believe rebates is the answer to improving our economy.

I would instead recommend as a first measure to use the proposed rebates to extend unemployment benefits and support retraining programs for those who have lost their jobs from shut-downs and out-sourcing, and are actively seeking employment.

Then, if it's rebates Congress wants, let them give rebates to people who are implementing low-cost and capital improvements in their dwellings to conserve energy. Such programs were implemented by Carter and working quite well. However, Reagan all but abolished them, publicly claiming it was for "government cost cutting". I suspect in reality it was because large energy corporations were losing too much of their precious god - money.

An imbecile could have seen six years ago that these issues would eventually take center stage in our economy. However, Congressional and Executive branch officials and their friends were getting filthy rich, so why should they care? More money gives them even more power over others.

Had Congress focused as much on countering our job outsourcing problem and developing viable energy policies and programs as they have focused on playing "politics as usual" families would be much better off financially than they will be even if they receive the maximum $1200 rebate. That would require Congressional leadership that was more concerned about America than they were about their own pocketbooks and political futures.

We didn't have such leadership six years ago, and we certainly don't have it from either party today.

1/28/2008

Bush A Caring President?

Bush sounded almost like a caring President in his State of the Union message. What bull! Along with the full support of the Republican Congress, he's the idiot that got us into all the mess we're in now. I'm too frustrated and angry over all his lies and insincerities to say more right now. Gotta calm down first.

1/16/2008

Wanted: Truth, Integrity and Objectivity

Objectivity, integrity and truth must be standards in all deliberations and discussions if we are to progress toward fair and viable solutions of our problems. The false-hoods and subjectivity of self-absorbed political zealots accomplishes nothing but to divide and destroy. Many evidences of that can be read on posts in newsgroups, blogs, editorial pages, and, unfortunately, in the statements and actions of our political leaders.

I often think how much better it would be, and how much more we could achieve, if we would all seek and share untainted, factual information in a positive way, instead of slithering along the low road and slandering others because they disagree with our personal desires or "gut feelings". Such self-centered subjectivity should never be the foundation for discussions or decisions, and cannot be included as even a single paving stone if we are to build paths toward solutions that will benefit all.

The season is again upon us when much of such rubbish will come spewing forth. Don't accept it until you've checked out the facts. By all means, if you learn it is false send a nasty response to those who released the venom letting them know emphatically that you're sick of all but the whole truth. That especially includes the news media who often serves more as gossip-mongers than unbiased informers.

Become familiar with web sites like FactCheck or Snopes. Use them often to get to the truth of statements by or about national political candidates. For all candidates conduct simple research into a candidate's past, including public statements they've made, legislation they've supported, and what experience they've had. In other words, they're asking you for a job, so check out their resumes. How can we expect political leaders to take us seriously as concerned, intelligent voters if we simply act or react like stupefied buffoons trusting their every word?

1/03/2008

Iowa: Almost Meaningless

My daughter had never watched a caucus in action before. I told her that, theoretically, it's similar to the national conventions, except they don't always pare the slate of candidates to only one victorious soul in each party. With a beverage at one hand, snacks at the other, and a remote at the ready, we commenced with her education thanks to CNN and the agrarian, Bible belt state of Iowa.

She soon became intrigued with the idea that neighbors could actually assemble, intelligently and respectfully discuss issues, and make decisions for something as important as the U.S. Presidency. However, she also learned how meaningless results can pour from the political arena when competing non-profit organizations are allowed to dictate incongruous rules for decision making.

In the end two front runners did emerge, but no absolute victors were crowned by anyone but the media, the camp followers, and the spin masters. Being such a small, unrepresentative sampling of the American populace the Iowa caucuses were not significant enough to warrant an "all-nighter" by the national news media. Iowans did prove, though, that objective and morally well-founded people concerned for the well-being of the whole can not be bought. Nor will they succumb to superficial prejudices.