Is politics as usual doomed?

Probably not. But it's fun to watch as all of the negative campaigning takes place in the Democratic Presidential race and bomb-thrower after bomb-thrower goes down in flames. A lot of really outrageous claims have been made by political "operatives" who then are either fired or asked to resign.

It almost seems like a new twist on an old tactic. It used to be if you had something negative to say about your opponent, you just came out and said it. Then you'd say it through surrogates so that if it backfired you could say that you didn't support it. Now, you can have someone say it and before it gets you in trouble get rid of them.

It doesn't change the fact that someone said it, but you can pretend to be above all of that. I don't think that anyone is really fooled by it all though. There have been way too many of these convenient firings or disavowals of the support of bomb-throwers for it to be anything else but another political ploy.

---

Look at the character of some of the negative campaign remarks while we're on the topic. Remember, that we're talking about purely Democratic Party politics. The campaign in question is between two Democratic candidates that differ only marginally in their politics. There hasn't been much need for Republicans to step into the fray, because they aren't running against one — yet.

The negative campaigning has touched on the alleged religion of one of the candidates. Is he or isn't he a Muslim, as if that really matters. Why should it matter? It would seem that the campaign that raised the issue, and then got rid of their bomb-thrower thinks that it matters to Democratic voters. Does this imply that the oh-so-tolerant Democratic party might have a problem with religious discrimination?

The negative campaigning has touched on the race of one of the candidates, in more than one way, and from more than one side of the issue. Is Barack Obama getting a pass because he's a black man as failed Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro seemed to imply? Is he "not black enough" as Al Sharpton implied? Could it be that the Democratic party, which relies so heavily upon the black vote and is quick to condemn even a hint of white racism (ala Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond, the longest serving Senator in history), has a problem with racism in its own ranks?

The negative campaigning has touched on the gender of one of the candidates as well, but not so much from the males in the campaign. Rather the female candidate has complained about the men ganging up on her and picking on her because of her gender, as if it should give her a pass. Again, Geraldine Ferraro made a point of gender as being important to the campaign as well. Aren't feminists claiming that it's about equality? So why should gender matter in the race at all?

---

As much as I detest both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I wish they'd campaign on the issues. The "go negative without going negative" approach to this campaign is insulting to Democratic voters, and damaging to the Democratic party (not that that last is such a bad thing in my view).

It also points to the "power at any price" mentality of politicians today, particularly that of Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been responsible for most of the negative campaigning. There's a long way to go yet before November. The negative campaigning is dividing the Democratic party quite nicely.

Perhaps if Hillary's campaign goes down in flames we'll see an abatement of the politics of personal destruction.

Somehow though, I doubt it.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website.

Time to move on

This morning, I was awakened by my wife, who brought me coffee. As I was rousing from my groggy slumber my clock radio turned itself on, and I heard Mr. Spitzer's resignation speech.

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned, purportedly over a sex scandal. It seems the governor, who spent his career as an attorney general and politician has been visiting high-priced hookers for the past ten or so years. He's right to resign.

After all, prostitution is illegal in New York. It's illegal in Washington D.C. It's also illegal in both places to solicit prosecution. As a former attorney general, Mr. Spitzer knew this, and in fact probably prosecuted people for it.

Democratic calls for his resignation that I've heard have touched on his hypocrisy. Democratic support for Mr. Spitzer has ranged from condemnation of America because of our backward value system to the it's just about sex argument. After all, more enlightened and culturally advanced Europeans think there's nothing wrong with a man acting on his base animal instincts, or cheating on his wife.

The fact remains that what Mr. Spitzer did was illegal. If he hadn't resigned, the New York legislature should have impeached him.

Conservative and Republican reactions have been varied. I first heard about this scandal on the Sean Hannity show a couple of days ago. On that day Sean was talking to J.C. Watts. It seemed to me that they struck the right tone. Eliot Spitzer was a man, subject to the failings of all men. What he did was wrong, and should have a price, but we shouldn't be quick to condemn him. After all, all men have moral failings.

We don't know for a fact that Mr. Spitzer actually engaged the services of a prostitute, but there's a lot of evidence that he did. Mr. Spitzer's apologies to his family and constituents never mentioned what he actually did. His resignation was short and to the point, again never mentioning his specific failing.

As I was listening to his speech I was grateful, because this was yet another scandal that really doesn't need to be all over the news. And then I heard the commentary from Glenn Beck. Frankly it was disgraceful. They replayed his resignation speech, interspersed with mocking commentary by Glenn. The schadenfreude was obvious.

It's always a shame to see a man fall to disgrace, particularly a man in a position of power. Regardless of his politics lives are often destroyed by it. Things aren't going to change in New York because Mr. Spitzer is leaving politics. The Democratic party still has a lock on power in the state. The lieutenant governor is just as liberal as the governor was.

Comparisons have been made between the treatment of Eliot Spitzer and Mark Foley, or Larry Craig. I even considered making one myself. After all, toe-tapping in a public restroom hardly compares with spending a thousand dollars for an hour with a prostitute. I thought better of it though.

The political parties and opposing ideologies are indeed different when it comes to this. Democratic politicians with moral failings that don't quite rise to provable violations of law are often lauded for those failings, while Republican politicians in the same circumstances are often hounded out of office by both parties for it. It doesn't seem fair.

Men, and women elected to public office ought to be held to a high standard. It doesn't matter which party they are from. When they are given the responsibility for crafting and enforcing our laws they should not be above them. If they violate those laws they should and must be removed from power.

But it's not a cause for great rejoicing.

Eliot Spitzer is leaving politics. The public will benefit by this in a small way, because a man who violated the laws he was sworn to uphold is no longer in office. Eliot Spitzer and his family will also benefit, because now that his sin is in the open he has the chance to repent and to repair his relationships.

We should take the opportunity to look to ourselves. Eliot Spitzer succumbed to his moral failings and was caught, but we all have moral failings (maybe not the same ones, but we have them anyway). This is an opportunity for us to consider them and hopefully do something about it.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

On the Presidential election

Once again, the Patriot Post picks a winner…

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

In this year when we are getting ready to select another President via a vast popularity contest, it seems good to remember what the original purpose of our federal government was and why the founders chose the method of electing a President that they did.

Remember, our Founders sought to bind thirteen nations together into a single union for the purposes of mutual defense, and to ensure liberty. It wasn't their purpose to eliminate the States, but to unify and defend them.

They started with a loose confederation of nation-states. When that confederation proved to be inadequate to the mutual defense of the nation-states they created a federal republic bound by a federal Constitution. Each and every State that has joined the United States has ratified that Constitution, which promises…

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

That promise ensures that, barring amendment to the Constitution, which must be ratified by the States, the federal government shall remain a republic. That promise outlines in a brief paragraph what the purpose of the federal government is, and why the States ought to join it.

As James Madison argued, the Constitution was a FEDERAL Constitution, and not a NATIONAL Constitution. This explains a lot about the mechanism the founders chose for selecting the President…

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

It's plain that the selection of the President was not intended to be a nationwide popularity contest like we see today. The President is intended to be the chief executive of a federal, not a national government. The President doesn't stand for the people, he stands for the States.

There have been several amendments to the Constitution that affect the election of the President. None of them have changed the clause just quoted, although they have had a diluting effect upon it, most notably the 14th amendment.

The point is that the States and not the people choose the President as the chief executive of the federal government. This is why it's distressing to me to see the States attempting to throw away that privilege and responsibility in moves toward direct democracy.

In the originally defined process, the Electors would each vote for two persons. Under the simplest scenario outlined in the original Constitution, after these electoral votes were counted, the one having the most electoral votes would be President, and the one having the second most electoral votes would be Vice President. Can you imagine the outcome today if that process hadn't been amended? Almost surely the President and the Vice President would come from opposing political parties.

---

Look at the choices that the Democratic party and the Republican party have given us this year. Compare their positions with what the founders declared that the president should be and do.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This is the first and primary duty of the President as laid out in our federal Constitution. Which of the three candidates do you honestly believe is best qualified to fill that role? Some experience is desirable don't you think? Which of the candidates has that experience?

Of course such experience isn't that hard to come by. All three of the candidates have had the opportunity, although arguably one of them would have been excluded from combat until recently. Nevertheless, military experience isn't mandatory…

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

Are any of the candidates on record having called the principal officers of any of the executive departments, particularly the military, liars? Have any of them said that they don't trust the opinions of… say the Secretary of Defense? Have any of them come out and challenged the veracity an officer of the military placed in charge of a high-profile military campaign of national interest while he was giving sworn testimony to Congress?

Whether you agree in principal with the war in Iraq or not, Congress authorized that action. Members of both major political parties called for action. Members of both major political parties voted to authorize the use of military force. Members of both major political parties voted to enact a policy of "regime change" in Iraq, and did so before September 11, 2001.

Which of the candidates, having voted for the authorization to use military force now claims to have been misled? Which of the candidates has made promises to remove the military from the war on terror? Which of the candidates has made promises to invade an ally (albeit a weak one) in the war on terror?

and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to the subject of impeachment? Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to pardons? Yes, I know that none of the candidates has been in the position to grant pardons, however one of the candidates has been in a position to influence some very questionable pardons.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Which of the candidates do you trust to appoint judges that will honor the Constitution as the founders intended? Which of the candidates have tried to obstruct the appointment of judges? Which have tried to obstruct the appointment of Ambassadors by supporting filibusters when they were in the minority, or by supporting the filibuster even when they were in the majority? Which of the candidates has made an issue of the firing of inferior officers by the head of one of the departments?

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

With a Senate bent upon obstruction, Presidents have found it necessary to take advantage of this power granted to them by the Constitution. Which of the candidates have made that necessary?

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Which of today's candidates can you think of that have challenged the carefully chosen words in the State of the Union address of a sitting president, calling them a lie when it was demonstrable that they were in fact true? Which of the candidates has the most questionable record with regard to the faithful execution of laws? Have any of the candidates been associated with the suppression of evidence? The harassment of witnesses in a trial? When it comes to integrity, do any of the candidates come to mind?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All three of the current candidates have been bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution. Which of them has respected that oath? Have any? All three of the current candidates are sitting Senators. Which of them has honored the limitations upon the Congress outlined by the Constitution? Which of them has worked to eliminate the earmarks and other appropriations of federal money for local purposes that the Constitution doesn't authorize throughout his or her career? Which of them have not? Which of the candidates (or their campaign staff) has made the religion of one of the other candidates an issue?

These are the issues upon which we ought to make up our mind who is most, or least, qualified among the candidates to be President. Personally, I find all three candidates to be lacking in one or another of these issues.

The answers to these questions have nothing to do with the liberalism or conservatism of the candidates. Frankly, they're all too liberal (using the current meaning of the word, not the classical meaning) for my tastes. But, when I consider the purpose our founders had for the office of the President, and I consider how the current set of candidates fit that purpose, I am left with only one choice.

I'm going to vote for John McCain.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

A new contributor?

The entire point of this blog was to start discussion of various topics from both sides of the political aisle. Hopefully soon we'll have a new contributor.