Too Many Bad Choices for President

I am disappointed that both Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards have left the race for president. Both would have done a very good job.  The remaining candidates have too many flaws.  I will be forced to make an unenthusiastic choice.

John McCain is almost the moderate Republican that I could support.  He has three serious flaws.  He is opposed to any form of universal health care.  That is an issue that is very personal for me.  My son has no health care plan.  My wife and daughter have plans that are very expensive.  Second he says, if it is necessary, he will keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years to win the war. The third issue is his age.  He will be 72 years old on inauguration day.  The job of president is very demanding and one that really requires the attention of a younger and healthier person.  Whomever he selects as vice president has to be someone that really can step into the presidency.  Is that the way we want to select the next president?  

Mitt Romney has a history of changing positions on too many issues.  I do not know his real views on any major issue.  His flip flopping and turning and twisting tell me nothing about what he would do as president.

Barack Obama stands for “change we can believe in” and has a poster reading “stand up for change.”  I do not know what that means.  He has no administrative experience and has had a very short time in the senate.  He does have chutzpah.  Many younger voters are supporting him because they find him inspiring.  My question is, “where’s the beef?”

Hillary Clinton has experience and knowledge of the working of government.  She also has Bill Clinton and both of them are too much the manipulators.  Her campaign methods make me uncomfortable.  It’s her “know it all” attitude that bothers me.  We need a president that can bring our nation together.  She alienates people.  Who would agree to be vice president or secretary of state for Hillary Clinton?

Hate Can Hurt

“there is, perhaps, one large American political figure who could cause depressed, fractious Republicans to bind their wounds, downplay their divisions, renew their purpose, and join hands in blissful unity at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Republican convention.  And that figure is Hillary Clinton.” Michael Gerson, Former Bush speechwriter in a Newsweek article.  That was so apparent in the January 24 GOP debate in Boca Raton, Florida.

 If the only thing uniting Republicans is their common hatred for Hillary Clinton the party will most definitely lose.  John Kerry was not a good candidate for the Democrats in 2004 but they rallied around him because they hated George W. Bush.  The GOP needs more than hatred to win in November.  They need an inspiring candidate with a vision.

Who Thinks China Is Important?

“The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.”  That would be Thomas L. Friedman.    His book is an eye opener.    

Despite the recent recalls of Chinese made toys and other products distributed in the United States, China is the booming nation of the world.  It’s not a new phenomena. 

BusinessWeek ran an article last January (January 25, 2007) entitled “China Growth Blows Past Forecasts” which reported China’s 2006 growth was at the rate of 10.7%.  That growth followed a 2005 grwoth rate of 10.4%.  Reports for 2007 have not yet appeared in the media but forecasts for last year ranged from 8% to 10%.  Newsweek’s January 7, 2008 cover story is titled “CHINA NOW.”  That Newsweek section consisted of  separate articles.  One of them was written by New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg. 

Reports of ever growing oil consumption, manufacturing, building and highway construction, etc. in China can only lead to one conclusion.  China is quickly becoming the second most economically powerful nation in the world.  Perhaps the most economically powerful nation in the world. 
China does not have to become an enemy of the United States if this does occur.  Economically sucessful natons can work together for the betterment of all.  Mayor Bloomberg article, A Race We Can All Win”, isn’t about beating China. It is about a competitive race that will make the world a better place. 
I believe it is important to look at the views of our presidential candidates regarding this topic.  So I looked at their web sites and here is what I found.  It’s all very disappointing.- Barack Obama wants to “work to ensure that China plays by international rules.” 

- John Edwards has no positions on foreign affairs.

- Hillary Clinton says “The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system.”                                     

- Mike Huckabee has no position on China.  He does have a page titled “National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror” on which he says “With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.”                                                                          

- Mitt Romney: “China and the rapidly developing nations of Asia are growing into stronger economic competitors.”                                                                

- John McCain: under the National Security issue, “potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.”                  

- Rudy Giuliani: has no positions on foreign affairs beyond the fight against terrorists.

Now Children, Let’s Stop the Fighting

The January 22 Democratic Debate on CNN was a real Donnybrook.  The arguing between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was more like two children fighting over nothing of consequence.  It made both of them look foolish.  Bill Clinton wading into the melee added nothing but another child like behavior.  I believe Hillary won the arguments but she made herself look foolish.  The outcome was that John Edwards came through as the adult with real issues.

It is possible that John Edwards could win large numbers of delegates on February 5.  He could win as the “dark horse” candidate because everyone could rally around him.  I can only hope.

The Theme is “Change”

It’s been driving me just a little nutty.  The word is “change.”  I thought perhaps I am the only one noticing this almost drum beat use of the word.  So, I avoided writing about it.  I was wrong.  The cover article on today’s Los Angeles Times Opinion page is The Empty Promise < http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-noah13jan13,1,1572050.story?ctrack=1&cset=true> by Timothy Noah.  He too questions the use of this word. 

The primary user of this word is Barak Obama.  His slogan is “Change we can believe in.”  The problem is he does not explain those changes.  He has had signs printed with this slogan and many people at his campaign speaking sites are waving them vigorously.  He is asking us to believe in him without giving us any of the detail.  This has prompted me and many pundits to ask the question “where is the beef?” 

If any candidate wants my vote he/she will have to tell me their plans.  Selecting a president on faith is not good enough.  The current and previous president is proof enough that faith is not enough.

China Is Important To Everyone

“The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.”  That would be Thomas L. Friedman.  His book is an eye opener.    

Despite the recent recalls of Chinese made toys and other products distributed in the United States, China is the booming nation of the world.  It’s not a new phenomena. 

BusinessWeek ran an article last January (January 25, 2007) entitled “China Growth Blows Past Forecasts” which reported China’s 2006 growth was at the rate of 10.7%.  That growth followed a 2005 grwoth rate of 10.4%.  Reports for 2007 have not yet appeared in the media but forecasts for last year ranged from 8% to 10%.  Newsweek’s January 7, 2008 cover story is titled “CHINA NOW.”  That Newsweek section consisted of  separate articles.  One of them was written by New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg. 

Reports of ever growing oil consumption, manufacturing, building and highway construction, etc. in China can only lead to one conclusion.  China is quickly becoming the second most economically powerful nation in the world.  Perhaps the most economically powerful nation in the world. 

China does not have to become an enemy of the United States if this does occur.  Economically sucessful natons can work together for the betterment of all.  Mayor Bloomberg article, A Race We Can All Win”, isn’t about beating China. It is about a competitive race that will make the world a better place. 

I believe it is important to look at the views of our presidential candidates regarding this topic.  So I looked at their web sites and here is what I found.  It’s all very disappointing. 

- Barak Obama wants to “work to ensure that China plays by international rules.”                                                       
- John Edwards has no positions on foreign affairs.           
- Hilary Clinton says “The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system.”                                                         
- Mike Huckabee has no position on China.  He does have a page titled “National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror” on which he says “With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.”                           
- Mitt Romney: “China and the rapidly developing nations of Asia are growing into stronger economic competitors.” 
- John McCain: under the National Security issue, “potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.”                                                 
- Rudy Giuliani: has no positions on foreign affairs beyond the fight against terrorists.

New Hampshire is Just The Beginning

The first three election caucuses and primary elections represent less than ½ of 1% of the total population of our nation.  Despite this small number, the pundits and talk show hosts have delivered the final results.  They have almost told us who the next president will be.

I disagree with the idea that they know any more than me or any of my friends and acquaintances.  Everyone seemed to believe that Barak Obama would win today’s New Hampshire Democratic primary well ahead of Hillary Clinton.  Now that we know the results it will be difficult to believe anything those pundits say. 

I changed my political party affiliation after voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor in October of 2003.  I had been a Democrat during all of my previous adult life. The reality was that the previous governor, Gray Davis (D), was doing an incompetent job.  It was obvious that a change was necessary.  Now that I am not part of either political party I can really evaluate the pros and cons of all the candidates.  It has been a refreshing experience.

The following entry was posted on a news blog in a response to a news item about Barak Obama’s growing popularity in the polls.  The writing may not be perfect but the thought could be a worthwhile guide to America’s thought processes.  

Talk is cheap. Obama is inexperienced and America is less intelligent than I even thought if we buy into this man who does not have any new ideas or specifics about what he will do as President other than to say lets change and hope for better things. To me this shows that he is naive and this is the real world.

He speaks in generalities and as the law professor that he was in the past. America is basically an optimistic country, but it does no good when it can not be enacted. Obama is a talker and not a doer.

I hope (good huh?) that America sends him back to the U.S. Senate and let him vote and take a stand on issues and work through what he really believes in, then come back and try again from President. Times are too serious for his rookie status and the impression that he is God come back to save us all.  dmw, roeland park,ks

The ABC TV Debates In New Hampshire

Oh, this was a very long recording on my DVR.  We went square dancing while the DVR set me up for a Sunday review.

It continues to mystify me that the two political parties are rarely discussing the same issues.  Are these parties discussing issues in two different countries?  The message I receive is that Republicans and Democrats really have different visions of America.  That is really too bad for its citizens.  It may be the reason that the meeting at the University of Oklahoma tomorrow, January 7, may be very significant.

We need a president that can lead all Americans.  The closest candidates that meet these criteria are Barak Obama and John Edwards.  But they also do not address the issues that are discussed in any of the Republican debates.  That may be the reason that the Oklahoma meeting is really very important for our nation.

Is This Really Democracy?

When the constitution of the United States was written science as we have known it in the 20^th and 21^st centuries did not exist.  The authors of the constitution were merchants who were interested in protecting their wealth and way of life.  That was their purpose.

Since the authors could not foresee the future they wrote the constitution to govern in the world as it existed at the end of the 18^th century.  Wisely they also provided a means to amend the document.  Hence the term “Living Constitution” has evolved.  You can find this term in Wikipedia along with the term originalism, the view that the constituion cannot be changed from its original intent.  The Wikipedia discussion is extensive and is one that I have read elsewhere.  I subscribe to the idea of the living constitution.

George W. Bush has enunciated his desire to bring democracy to all the world.  He is a vocal supporter of democratic institutions.  However, in the United States he was not elected by popular vote. He was elected by an electoral system that was part of the original constitution.  President George W. Bush was selected by a majority of electors and that happened because the elector system provides for a “winner take all” process in each individual state.

As bad as the electoral system is, the United States does not have a formal legal process in place for the selection of candidates in each party.  There is nothing in the Constitution about selecting party candidates.  The process is part of our common law system that was started by England.

Here are the first three candidate selection elections in 2008.

January 3—Iowa Caucus

January 5—Wyoming Republican Caucus

January 8—New Hampshire Primary 

The troubling part of this is that these three states have small populations and they, for the most part, do not reflect the large population centers of our country that are ethnically diverse. 

The insiders that John Edwards talks about in his campaining have control of this situation.  Articles on these subjects are now making the news. Nation Has Its Fill of Iowa-NH First is a good example <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080101/D8TT8E280.html>.  Changing the system will be a big challenge.  Smaller states want to keep things as they are for both the primaries and the electoral college for just one reason.  The have more influence on the out come.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg

The November 12 edition of Newsweek offered a cover story about a Mike Bloomberg run for president.  It is an interesting biographical article but told readers nothing about his political positions.  Obviously it was an introduction to his possible candidacy.  Bloomberg has a political adviser, Kevin Sheekey.  Mr. Sheekey probably made contact with Jon Meacham of Newsweek to write this piece.  He is not perfect and the article certainly told readers that fact.The only mention of a decision to run for president in the article was that it would happen after the February 5 primaries and probably on March 5, the day of the Texas primary.  Mr. Sheekey says Mike Bloomberg would only run if he believed he could actually win the 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president.

ABC World News has reported that there will be a meeting at the University of Oklahoma on January 7 to discuss options for America.   It was reported the meeting will be attended by Republicans and Democrats as well as others. In attendance will be “Bloomberg, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, both considered potential independent White House hopefuls, and more than a dozen current and retired lawmakers and others are scheduled to attend the closed-door discussions.” When I watch the TV debates in each political party it is so very apparent that they are very far apart on the issues.  Actually they discuss totally different issues in each political party.  The issues are so different it’s like they are not even in the same country.  None of them has yet told us how he or she will bring the nation together.  This nation does need a leader that will do that.

My question is can a billionaire Jew born in Massachusetts bring this nation together?  My Dad would say yes.  I am not so certain that America would agree.  If the candidates were Chuck Hagel for President and Mike Bloomberg for Vice President, that might sell.  I doubt Mike Bloomberg would accept second place.

That this meeting is occurring does give me hope for our country.  What a good way to start the New Year.