Well, I just got back from voting. No, I didn't vote because of the hundred and twelve pieces of junk left on my door by certain campaigns. I voted because I always have, and always will. I pride myself on doing the research on everything on the ballot. I pride myself on never voting for only one party. I pride myself on thinking about the public questions, and analyzing decisions by the judges up for retention. Yes, I love voting, because it's the reason my ancestors came to this wonderful country.
That said, I disagree fundamentally with the "duty to vote" that we keep hearing about. Voting is a right. Not a fundamental right, since it can be taken away. But nowhere is there a duty to vote. It is a disgusting campaign tactic to get people to mindlessly support the candidate of the day. They say, "If you don't vote, your voice won't be heard." That's right, but my mom always said you should think before you speak, and a lot of voters don't.
Today at my polling place, a woman came into the booth beside me and immediately asked for assistance. She asked the assistant if she could vote for just one party. Of course the assistant pointed out the straight ticket buttons, and reminded the woman that there were several other things on the ballot that weren't ticket items: judicial retention, public questions, and races that are non-partisan here in Monroe County. "No," the woman said, "I just want to vote for the democrats today."
This is what is wrong with American voting mentally today. It doesn't matter if she blindlessly supports Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or anyone else. The problem is that she isn't taking the time to think anything out. She's ignoring public questions. She's ignoring the judiciary. All she cares about is putting her party into office. That is stupid voting.
I propose that we eliminate the straight ticket buttons. If you want to vote for all one party, you can take the minute and a half to push their individual names. But at least then you'd have to go through the seven pages and answer the damn questions. See what it is you're voting for. Think for five seconds about whether assessments should be run through the township or the county.
My biggest problem with this woman and voters like her is that she ignored the public questions. She obviously supports "democracy," and yet she chose to ignore the one area where we are democratic. No, we vote in a republic in almost all ways. Our representatives makes the laws, not us. The closest thing to actual democracy we have in this country is public questions. We the people make the law. Incredible. But she doesn't care. No one does.
And that is the problem.
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
11.04.2008
9.22.2008
Election 2008: Texas Turns... Yellow?
As some will know, I am a pretty big supporter of third-party rights in this country, believing that both of the two major parties are in need of some serious revision. So I was delighted to hear about a suit filed in Texas by Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, contesting the presence of John McCain and Barack Obama on the ballots in November.
According to the campaign's press release:
It's true that too often, the two major parties break election rules and allowed to get away with it because both parties violated them. Essentially, why would McCain complain about Obama breaking a law, when he knows that Obama will do the same thing right back to him? This is an example of why multiple parties keep the election process [more] honest. Smaller parties are forced to know the election laws forwards and backwards, because they have to follow every letter to survive the attacks the major parties put on them (see, for example, the removal of Barr from the West Virginia and Connecticut ballots).
Other states have kicked Barr and others off the ballot because they did not meet filing deadlines. If it's fair to remove candidates for failing to meet deadlines when they represent minor parties, then turnabout should be fair play. If I were a resident of Texas (or any other state that placed their deadline earlier than August 27, the day the Democrats officially declared Obama their candidate), I would be tremendously offended that the major parties thought they were more important than my state's laws.
Of course the point of deadlines so early is to make certification for minor parties extremely difficult. But if the major parties are too cocky to read the rules of every state, then the Secretaries of State for the various states should boot the punks off their ballot and let parties that know how to read appear on the ballot.
Of course I'm not hopeful for the success of this lawsuit. The judges in Texas are elected on a partisan basis, so they owe a debt to their parties. And when it gets appealed up, the judges were all appointed by partisan elected officials, so they still owe a debt. Not quite fair, I know, but it would be nice if judges would simply read the law and apply it equally in all cases. Either they filed by August 26 or they didn't. Risk getting kicked off the bench to do the right thing.
But as we all know, "...some are more equal than others."
According to the campaign's press release:
"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."
Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.
"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.
A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state law "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."
It's true that too often, the two major parties break election rules and allowed to get away with it because both parties violated them. Essentially, why would McCain complain about Obama breaking a law, when he knows that Obama will do the same thing right back to him? This is an example of why multiple parties keep the election process [more] honest. Smaller parties are forced to know the election laws forwards and backwards, because they have to follow every letter to survive the attacks the major parties put on them (see, for example, the removal of Barr from the West Virginia and Connecticut ballots).
Other states have kicked Barr and others off the ballot because they did not meet filing deadlines. If it's fair to remove candidates for failing to meet deadlines when they represent minor parties, then turnabout should be fair play. If I were a resident of Texas (or any other state that placed their deadline earlier than August 27, the day the Democrats officially declared Obama their candidate), I would be tremendously offended that the major parties thought they were more important than my state's laws.
Of course the point of deadlines so early is to make certification for minor parties extremely difficult. But if the major parties are too cocky to read the rules of every state, then the Secretaries of State for the various states should boot the punks off their ballot and let parties that know how to read appear on the ballot.
Of course I'm not hopeful for the success of this lawsuit. The judges in Texas are elected on a partisan basis, so they owe a debt to their parties. And when it gets appealed up, the judges were all appointed by partisan elected officials, so they still owe a debt. Not quite fair, I know, but it would be nice if judges would simply read the law and apply it equally in all cases. Either they filed by August 26 or they didn't. Risk getting kicked off the bench to do the right thing.
But as we all know, "...some are more equal than others."
6.27.2008
The Real Reason for Number Two
The past few days have given the blogosphere much to talk about in regards to the Supreme Court, and in due time I plan to get to the ones I care about. The one that I care the most about, Heller, is the main focus of this post.
For the past 28 hours or so, I have seen plenty of status updates from friends who are upset by the ruling, wishing that it could have been decided after some of Obama's appointments were on the Court. Completely disregarding the chickens-hatching time quandry presented there, I can't help but ask my friends where they put their copy of the Bill of Rights. In case you lost it, the words "shall not be infringed" are still there.
One columnist in northern Indiana posed this question: "If our forefathers lived in 21st century America - with its ungodly crime and murder rates, its wealth of deadly weaponry, and its attempt to interpret a document written more than two centuries ago - would they be celebrating or castigating Thursday's landmark ruling?"
I'm fairly certain the answer to that question is an obvious "celebrate, but with hesitation". Yes, they would have been quite pleased with the outcome of the case. They would have been less pleased that an originalist believed that there are some acceptable firearm regulations.
Certainly the Second Amendment refers to a militia, like the National Guard in New York, or the entire population in Indiana. Taking weapons away from a militia would be counter-productive and wonderfully ironic. The concept of a universal (all free white men) militia can be traced back to at least 12th century England. But the more vital American interpretation of the right to bear arms became abundantly clear during the years preceding the American Revolution.
The British government couldn't help but notice those pesky colonists arming their militias while talking about how much they disliked the Crown. Parliament sought to disarm their militias, despite the Declaration of Rights and the common law right to self-defense. Conveniently, they had no problem with the right to self-defense (in fact, John Adams used the defense in the Boston Massacre trials), just with colonists possessing firearms.
It was those very firearms that allowed Americans to throw off the chains of British rule. The newly formed United States owed their freedom to their firearms. So they enshrined their right to firearms in their most important document, the Constitution.
This leads me to my main point, that the real reason for the Second Amendment was not solely to arm and regulate a militia. Yes, we wanted our citizens armed in case Britain, or Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else, tried to invade (indeed, this may have been the primary reason Congress passed the Second Amendment). But the reason the States ratified the Second Amendment was because they remembered the oppression of the last all-powerful government. Their firearms were the only thing that saved them.
Yes, the main reason to support the Second Amendment is because, if and when our government becomes too oppressive, our firearms will be the only thing stopping them from crushing us. When the firearms go, so too does the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the one the ensures the rest.
For the past 28 hours or so, I have seen plenty of status updates from friends who are upset by the ruling, wishing that it could have been decided after some of Obama's appointments were on the Court. Completely disregarding the chickens-hatching time quandry presented there, I can't help but ask my friends where they put their copy of the Bill of Rights. In case you lost it, the words "shall not be infringed" are still there.
One columnist in northern Indiana posed this question: "If our forefathers lived in 21st century America - with its ungodly crime and murder rates, its wealth of deadly weaponry, and its attempt to interpret a document written more than two centuries ago - would they be celebrating or castigating Thursday's landmark ruling?"
I'm fairly certain the answer to that question is an obvious "celebrate, but with hesitation". Yes, they would have been quite pleased with the outcome of the case. They would have been less pleased that an originalist believed that there are some acceptable firearm regulations.
Certainly the Second Amendment refers to a militia, like the National Guard in New York, or the entire population in Indiana. Taking weapons away from a militia would be counter-productive and wonderfully ironic. The concept of a universal (all free white men) militia can be traced back to at least 12th century England. But the more vital American interpretation of the right to bear arms became abundantly clear during the years preceding the American Revolution.
The British government couldn't help but notice those pesky colonists arming their militias while talking about how much they disliked the Crown. Parliament sought to disarm their militias, despite the Declaration of Rights and the common law right to self-defense. Conveniently, they had no problem with the right to self-defense (in fact, John Adams used the defense in the Boston Massacre trials), just with colonists possessing firearms.
It was those very firearms that allowed Americans to throw off the chains of British rule. The newly formed United States owed their freedom to their firearms. So they enshrined their right to firearms in their most important document, the Constitution.
This leads me to my main point, that the real reason for the Second Amendment was not solely to arm and regulate a militia. Yes, we wanted our citizens armed in case Britain, or Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else, tried to invade (indeed, this may have been the primary reason Congress passed the Second Amendment). But the reason the States ratified the Second Amendment was because they remembered the oppression of the last all-powerful government. Their firearms were the only thing that saved them.
Yes, the main reason to support the Second Amendment is because, if and when our government becomes too oppressive, our firearms will be the only thing stopping them from crushing us. When the firearms go, so too does the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the one the ensures the rest.
5.18.2008
In re Marriage Cases
A friend asked me today what I thought about the result in the recent California Supreme Court decision overturning the same-sex marriage ban in that state.
I must admit that I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, I don't like courts stepping in to overturn the will of the electorate. Prop 22 passed, and that seems to suggest that at least half of Californians didn't want same-sex marriage recognized by the state. However, the legislature twice passed bills legalizing same-sex marriage that were vetoed by the governor (who, incidentally, said that if they wanted gay marriage, then they would have to take it to the state Supreme Court). So "the will of the people" here seems a bit cloudy.
On the other hand, as any long-time reader of this blog could tell you, I am a pretty big supporter of gay rights, and I do personally believe that if government recognizes marriage at all, it should do so for any type of couple (not that I believe that government should be in the business of recognizing marriages). To me, it seems like most arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion, which makes me squeamish in government. In fact, very few counterarguments that I have heard when debating this topic end up relying on anything other than morality.
I don't feel like beating this to death right now, mostly because I have made my position very clear in the past, and because the rest of the blogosphere seems to be discussing it just fine without me. For a particularly interesting set of discussions, try looking at the Volokh Conspiracy's stream of posts. So, to answer my friend's question, I agree with the general outcome of the case (giving the right to marry to gays) but disagree with the method (in court, rather than democratically).
I must admit that I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, I don't like courts stepping in to overturn the will of the electorate. Prop 22 passed, and that seems to suggest that at least half of Californians didn't want same-sex marriage recognized by the state. However, the legislature twice passed bills legalizing same-sex marriage that were vetoed by the governor (who, incidentally, said that if they wanted gay marriage, then they would have to take it to the state Supreme Court). So "the will of the people" here seems a bit cloudy.
On the other hand, as any long-time reader of this blog could tell you, I am a pretty big supporter of gay rights, and I do personally believe that if government recognizes marriage at all, it should do so for any type of couple (not that I believe that government should be in the business of recognizing marriages). To me, it seems like most arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion, which makes me squeamish in government. In fact, very few counterarguments that I have heard when debating this topic end up relying on anything other than morality.
I don't feel like beating this to death right now, mostly because I have made my position very clear in the past, and because the rest of the blogosphere seems to be discussing it just fine without me. For a particularly interesting set of discussions, try looking at the Volokh Conspiracy's stream of posts. So, to answer my friend's question, I agree with the general outcome of the case (giving the right to marry to gays) but disagree with the method (in court, rather than democratically).
1.10.2008
Back at It
After a long delay for Christmas break, and a warm vacation in Arizona, I am back to post. I would have posted over break, but, to be honest, I was enjoying relaxation and working on getting out résumés for this summer. I spread my net wide, and hopefully my undergraduate record will help me get a few interviews. Several federal agencies received my information, as did a few firms in Indianapolis. I am hoping that I can find a paying job, but I won't be holding my breath.
I am particularly excited by my schedule this semester. Not that there was anything wrong with my schedule last semester, but rather than Ethics and Torts, I get libertarian lovables Property and Constitutional Law. Further, we get into advocacy in Legal Research and Writing, which I think is my strength. I found it difficult to write completely neutrally last semester, and the opportunity to practice oral advocacy will lend itself well to whatever is in my future.
I am keeping up with the election coverage, but I won't get political here other than to say that the candidate I support is gathering far more votes than the "mainstream media" believed he would. Hopefully he will make a splash in Michigan, where he was running ads in Arabic to the Muslim communities there. I was disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out of the race, since I believed he was the Democrat most qualified to be President, and a man who developed far more innovative solutions to problems (boycotting the Beijing Olympics to put pressure on China to get involved in Africa, for example). He should have gotten more votes, but apparently he wasn't liberal enough to win in the primaries. He also didn't say the words "change" or "hope" enough on stage. C'est la vie.
I am particularly excited by my schedule this semester. Not that there was anything wrong with my schedule last semester, but rather than Ethics and Torts, I get libertarian lovables Property and Constitutional Law. Further, we get into advocacy in Legal Research and Writing, which I think is my strength. I found it difficult to write completely neutrally last semester, and the opportunity to practice oral advocacy will lend itself well to whatever is in my future.
I am keeping up with the election coverage, but I won't get political here other than to say that the candidate I support is gathering far more votes than the "mainstream media" believed he would. Hopefully he will make a splash in Michigan, where he was running ads in Arabic to the Muslim communities there. I was disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out of the race, since I believed he was the Democrat most qualified to be President, and a man who developed far more innovative solutions to problems (boycotting the Beijing Olympics to put pressure on China to get involved in Africa, for example). He should have gotten more votes, but apparently he wasn't liberal enough to win in the primaries. He also didn't say the words "change" or "hope" enough on stage. C'est la vie.
10.29.2007
Occam's Tax Code
Not so long ago in Torts, we discussed Occam's razor as it relates to strict liability. The razor is the 14th century principle of lex parsimoniae; that is, that, all other things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. What followed was a delightfully intellectual discussion that does not need repeating here. Rather, it made me think about all the places in life that the razor would make life that much better.
As we get into election season (not that today is any different than the last eight months), it occurred to me that my vote should go to the one who follows the concept of the razor most closely, specifically regarding the tax code. The version just recommended by Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had tortious action performed upon it by CNBC, and rightfully so. Even though it keeps the AMT at bay, and reduces top corporate taxes, it raises taxes elsewhere (for example, a 4% surtax on all AGI over $200,000, which I suspect several of my readers make or will be making). In fact, as the report from the Tax Foundation states, "almost all of the 90 million taxpayers whom Rangel claims would pay less under his tax plan would still end up paying more to Uncle Sam in 2011 as a result of the tax cuts' expiring."
Fortunately, it's unlikely that this bill will pass before 2009, and then only if a Democrat takes the White House. For that reason, this goes as a large point in the "con" column for voting Democratic. I still put my support behind Ron Paul (who, incidentally, will be on the Tonight Show tomorrow), because it seems that his tax code is the most Occam-like. Simple solution indeed.
As we get into election season (not that today is any different than the last eight months), it occurred to me that my vote should go to the one who follows the concept of the razor most closely, specifically regarding the tax code. The version just recommended by Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had tortious action performed upon it by CNBC, and rightfully so. Even though it keeps the AMT at bay, and reduces top corporate taxes, it raises taxes elsewhere (for example, a 4% surtax on all AGI over $200,000, which I suspect several of my readers make or will be making). In fact, as the report from the Tax Foundation states, "almost all of the 90 million taxpayers whom Rangel claims would pay less under his tax plan would still end up paying more to Uncle Sam in 2011 as a result of the tax cuts' expiring."
Fortunately, it's unlikely that this bill will pass before 2009, and then only if a Democrat takes the White House. For that reason, this goes as a large point in the "con" column for voting Democratic. I still put my support behind Ron Paul (who, incidentally, will be on the Tonight Show tomorrow), because it seems that his tax code is the most Occam-like. Simple solution indeed.
7.24.2007
Dissecting the Debates, Part 1
It has now been 24 hours since the YouTube/CNN Democratic Debates, and I'm finally putting in words what my opinions were of the debates. It's a shame that half the questions were posed directly to Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. I think (as a member of a third party) debates are often the only chance for lesser-known candidates to get a word in edgewise (when was the last time you saw front page news about Mike Gravel or Ron Paul?). So, while I thought the format was generally very creative, I thought questions aimed specifically at the front-runners ought to have been cut back.
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
7.10.2007
Party News
More good news from the Washington Times today. Just as I was disenfranchised with the two-party system several years ago, it seems that more and more of the American people are also losing faith in both parties. From the article:
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
"Polls show that fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans or Democrats and the number of Americans unaffiliated with either party has reached an all-time high — good news for Libertarians, say officials of the nation's third-largest party.
"The Libertarian Party has had an 18 percent increase in membership since January, said Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee....
"A survey released last month by Rasmussen Reports found that a record share of Americans, 32.9 percent, identified themselves as neither Republican nor Democrat.
"The Rasmussen poll — conducted in May with a sample of 15,000 adults — found that the percentage identifying themselves as Republicans (30.8 percent) dropped for the fourth consecutive month, while the percentage of Democrats (36.3 percent) decreased for the third straight month, following trends that began for Republicans in the middle of 2005 and Democrats in January 2006."
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)