Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘mccain’


It is clear that our country is in serious trouble due to debt and our economy.  It is also clear that this trouble did not occur overnight.  It took years of sick misguided nurturing to get us where we are today;  at a fork in the national path.  We must decide which direction to take.

Do we head down the pike of progressivism with a European like socialism as our government?  Or do we slam on the brakes and make a hard direction change to take the right fork?  Before we discuss that choice, we should analyze what brought us to this juncture.  Yes, we can blame the current or the previous administrations – both have had a hand in our potential demise.  I prefer to start by analyzing Congress and the root cause that has slowly but steadily taken this nation to this precipice.

Did you know that since there are no term limits in Congress that it has become a club for some members?  Those members who quickly learn how to play the special interest game and how to amass money and power have longevity.  The more you learn how to manipulate the system and the perks of seniority, the more you can protect yourself against challengers and be reelected again and again.  The lack of term limits has permitted twenty five percent of our Senate to be in office more than three terms – more than eighteen years.

It gets better.  We have senators serving for as much as fifty-one years.  Robert Byrd is in his ninth term and at ninety two years of age is in his fifty-first year – he is also third in line to be President of the United States after Nancy Pelosi.  This makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

Robert Byrd is not alone.  Arlen Specter is eighty and is seeking his fifth term.  He is in his 29th year – isn’t that enough?  Other career politicians deeply planted in the Senate, who by the end of this year will have served more than any one person should, are:

Richard Shelby-AL – 23 (years)

John McCain-AZ – 23

Chris Dodd-CT (at least he is retiring) – 29

Joe Lieberman-CT – 21

Daniel Inouye-HI – 47

Daniel Akaka-HI – 19

Richard Lugar-IN – 33

Chuck Grassley-IA – 29

Tom Harkin-IA – 25

Mitch McConnell-KY – 25

Barbara Mikulski-MD – 23

John Kerry-MA – 25

Carl Levin-MI – 31

Thad Cochran-MS – 31

Kit Bond-MO – 23

Max Baucus=MT – 31

Harry Reid-NV – 23

Jeff Bingaman-NM – 27

Kent Conrad-ND – 23

Orrin Hatch-UT – 33

Patrick Leahy-VT – 35

Jay Rockefeller-WV – 25

Herbert Kohl-WI – 21

Do these people have a stake in the derailing of this nation?  Are they partially responsible for the catastrophic mess we are in?  How many votes have they cast that have put us right where we are?

In the House of Representatives where the term is two years (the Senate is six years), we have just as much carnage.  There are forty-one members serving 25 or more years.  This includes members with thirty, forty, and yes, even fifty years of service.

When you consider that Senators, for the most part, had service in the House of Representatives before joining the Senate, we have an absolute power corrupts situation in our Congress.  These career politicians of the Senate serving upwards of forty years in the Congress, when you combine service in both houses, and the career two year term politicians of the House of Representatives are responsible for the economic failure and the disregard of our Constitution with years of seemingly unconstitutional and government intrusion legislation.

We need fresh representation in both houses of Congress, because our current representatives in the Senate and the House have an abysmal track record, often only serving themselves and not the nation.  They have been there too long to be in touch with the electorate.  This, to any sane person, is the root cause of our demise.

Now, back to that fork in the road.  I choose the path of new leadership in both houses of Congress, a new administration, and substantially less government intrusion into our markets and our lives. How about you?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


What if Hillary Clinton, feeling that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left, decides to form a new political party in her run for President? I took a look at that scenario and was surprised to see my findings. The approach used to come up with the findings is far from scientific and could not get anymore low budget, but there is some reasonable rationale to the approach.

I started out with the simple premise that three major candidates and one minor candidate will be on the ballot in November – Obama, Clinton, McCain, Nader. With Obama and Nader sharing the far left, Clinton and McCain sharing the moderates, and the conservatives voting for McCain, since they have no horse in the race, the vote would be heavily split and winning a state’s electoral vote will not require a majority.

The next premise was that strong red states will continue to go with the Republicans and John McCain. The blue states were a different matter. In those states I looked at either the primary results or the polls where primaries have not as yet been held. When looking at the blue states, only a few battle ground states appeared and they will be discussed later.

538 electoral votes are at play and the Electoral College is not based on proportional votes and there are no super electors. 270 votes are needed to win the Presidency. The analysis of the primary results, polls, and voting history provided the following:

McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming for a total of 191 electoral votes.

Obama wins Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 131 electoral votes.

Clinton wins Arkansas, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for 172 electoral votes.

Two states are very hard to figure do to the split votes and they are Florida and Michigan. After the Democratic Party primary debacle it is anyone’s guess as to how these states will go especially with four candidates on the ballot. Even so they represent 44 electoral votes, less than what any of the candidates will need to clinch. Despite some disagreement with how a state might fall, there seems to be no mix to give anyone candidate 270 electoral votes. Now what? It goes to the House of Representatives. The difference here is that the House votes by state and each state has but one vote – more infighting.

The following is an excerpt from the National Archives and records Administration web site: If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#270

If the respective state delegations follow the way their state fell, with no candidate getting a majority, then McCain might garner 22 votes including Florida; Clinton 9 votes; and Obama 19 votes including Michigan. I believe that the decisions, within each state delegation, are not readily apparent and anything could happen. Even though Senator Clinton would have the fewest states, she could win as a long shot.

As ludicrous as this all seems, the Clintons may realize that forming a third party and continuing on, if Senator Clinton does not receive the Democratic Party’s nomination, as a candidate for President may just work.

Read Full Post »


MSNBC’s debate last evening focused on three themes. The health insurance debate, of which there is little difference between the plans of Senators Clinton and Obama, non-issue oriented questions of both moderators, and how NAFTA is ruining Ohio. First, the loss of jobs in Ohio is tied to the extensive use of technology in manufacturing, and the worldwide competitiveness of a multitude of manufacturing nations and our governments failure to prepare us to compete in a fierce worldwide trade market. It has little to do with Canada, whose manufacturing industry is on the decline, and Mexico which is responsible for only 11% of our imports – these two nations are NAFTA. Do you think one moderator or candidate might have pointed out the trade problem distinction – if the candidates did not know the distinction, then find new candidates, because neither is ready to be President?

Beyond this apparent gaff, I can tell you I have had about enough of debate questions designed to incite. I would hope that moderators would refrain from asking – How do you feel about your opponent’s attacks on you? The moderators clearly either don’t want to do fact checked follow-up questions or are just not knowledgeable enough to do these necessary questions. I need to be fair and point out that the overall news media in general, not just MSNBC, has not served this nation well with the choice of moderators for most of the debates. They seem more inclined to talk feelings, attack ads, and gotcha quotes. Often the political leaning of the moderator falls out all over their desk like a spilled can of red paint. It is noticed. Does anyone with a brain really care what these media types think and how they lean politically?

Why can’t we have a debate where tough questions are asked that test the knowledge, readiness to lead, the judgment of the candidate, and the enterprise to work through the political mine field to achieve a goal? Why does it appear that questions are tailored for the candidate, either to make them look poorly or to make them look presidential – okay, we might know the answer to that question? Of course, the positions of the candidates need to be learned; however, these positions are usually on their web site or in their campaign handouts or can be found in their opponent’s attack ads.

One moderator, last night, did make an attempt at asking the same hypothetical question to each candidate, but the question had a predictable answer before it was asked. It had something to do with – if Iraq asked us to leave, would we leave. Duh! What candidate, in their right mind, after the U.S. has recognized Iraq as a sovereign nation, would say – no we will stay anyway. Of course they would say – yes we will leave. This is the best this highly trained moderator could come up with?

Perhaps each candidate should be asked different questions, perhaps placed in envelopes chosen at random by each candidate. The moderator points out that these are tough question with no easy answers.

  1. The moderator opens the envelope and then asks the hypothetical but realistic question: Senator, as President, you have pulled out of Iraq, Iran has filled the void in Iraq and has now taken control of the Strait of Hormuz. It now controls 60% of the world’s oil exports. Iran is refusing oil shipments to the United States. How do you respond to this threat?
  2. The moderator opens the next envelope, selected by the next candidate, and asks: Three years from now, Iran hits Israel with a low yield nuclear tipped missile, 10,000 are dead, and Israel is mobilizing to go to nuclear war with Iran. How do you respond to this crisis?

These questions are realistic, the solutions are cloudy, but the depth of a candidate’s response to the question will tell us a whole lot about the candidate. When will we start to ask tough questions of these candidates? The media today is not providing any help in picking candidates. The media is more fixated on what Bill Cunningham said, who released the goofy picture of Senator Obama, or printing a story on page one that there is rumor and suspicion that Senator McCain may have possibly had an affair with a lobbyist and possibly or perhaps could have done favors on behalf of that lobbyist, like send a letter to the FCC asking a government agency only to make a decision – not how to make the decision. What are they teaching in journalism school – Tabloid 101?

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: