What — what is that American promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours — ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology. (p. 3)

Businesses have the responsibility to play by the rules of the road – what he left unsaid is that he believes that government has the right/responsibility to define the rules of the road. While there may be some rules that government should define, most of the rules of the road should be left to the market.

Perhaps more disturbing to me is that third paragraph which starts promisingly with the admission that “government cannot solve all our problems,” and that it should stick to doing things that we cannot do for ourselves. I’d like to know why we cannot “{keep} our toys safe, invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.” In the short term and on specific projects it may make sense for the government to make those investments, but we do ourselves a disservice if we learn to expect that government should be respoonsible for all those things that we can do for ourselves.

If Obama becomes President I will weigh what he does against these words:

And, Democrats, Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America’s promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us . . . each of us must do our part . . .

Yes, we must provide more ladders to success . . . But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents, that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework, that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, that’s the essence of America’s promise. (p. 4 to p. 5)

Those are wonderful and true words but if his policies do not support that requirement for individual responsibility his will be a failed presidency – regardless of his popularity. (I’m confident that the mutual responsibility aspect will not be ignored under Democratic leadership.)

it’s my dream that the citizens of our country renew their interest in politics half as much as they love the olympic games. . .

to preserve the posterity of politics in our country, the greatest country in the world, we need to start caring about the leadership of our country like we care about the olympics. that surge of patriotism we feel when a united states athlete wins a medal in the olympics – i wish we’d experience some of that same feeling when we are in the process of selecting our next mayor, governor or president.

in turn, the leadership of our country must train like athletes – they need to be inspirational. they need to be focused. they need to be uniting. they must never give up. they must aspire for greatness . . . if they could accomplish those things, we would offer our support . . . because they are AMERICAN, not because they are a democrat or a republican. we’d stand with them because we’re proud of their accomplishment . . .

(spelling and punctuation original)

If anyone can’t get behind that kind of a dream they probably should not be a citizen of this country. Unfortunately, even if Michael Phelps has political interest he can’t run for President until 2020 – we can’t afford to wait that long.

The thought that struck me is that when an election gets framed as a referendum on a candidate that candidate or party usually loses. I think that the reason that Gore did not receive enough support in 2000 to overcome the Nader voters is that the voters were fatigued by the emotionally charged Clinton presidency. In 2004 the vote got framed as a question of whather Kerry was really presidential or if he was just another politician. I think that 1996 was 2004 with Dole in the place of Kerry.

The exception seems to be 1988 which was a referendum on Reagan in which Bush I won.

What do you think? Is this how the outcome of our elections is decided – by voting against whoever the debate is centered on? (If so I would predict that 2010 will be a bad year to be a Democrat seeking election – regardless of the outcome this year.)

I got an email as part of an email list I didn’t know existed with the announcement about Mr. Barr. As soon as I located the way to unsubscribe I visited the campaign website. I decided to write about it because of how familiar some of the features were – they looked like they had been lifted off of the Ron Paul website. Some of the widgets he had looked like leftovers from the Mike Huckabee website. It turns out that the firm that designed Bob Barr’s site also designed Ron Paul’s site. (I have no information on who designed the Huckabee website.)

Unless Obama is convicted in October of having McCain assassinated in September there is no way we will be hearing about Barr in November. If he, or any other third party candidate, gets into any debates he will be largely ignored as every minor candidate is (as determined by the media) during each debate where they are allowed a backstage pass – I mean a place at the debate.

I’m fairly certain that David Shuster meant to elicit a reaction from viewers but did not mean any particular offense towards any of the Clintons. I don’t mean to suggest that his comments were appropriate, but the only apology that might be acceptable to the New York Senator would be an unequivocal endorsement from MSNBC (and even that might not be enough).

The thing we know for certain is that another Clinton term would mean years of investigations and acrimony in Washington guaranteeing that nothing useful gets accomplished. No other candidate would produce such a predictable response from the country.

How can a longer primary campaign good for Mr. McCain? So long as it’s civil, it keeps him in the news as a winner in Republican primaries, and provides a forum for Mr. McCain to continue traveling the country and spreading his message in a relaxed, unthreatening political environment. Think of it as the heavyweight boxing champion drawing TV coverage for workouts with his sparring partner. . .

And why would Mike Huckabee want to run such a friendly campaign? Because he knows all this, and would like to spend the next few weeks building the case for his selection as John McCain’s vice presidential nominee.

If you are registered and you haven’t yet – do. If you have already – encourage others to vote as well.

Of the 8 nominating contests so far the results for each of the 4 remaining candidates are:

• McCain
  • 3 wins
  • two 2nd place finishes
  • one each of 3rd, 4th, and 6th place
  • delegates from 5 of the states
• Romney
  • 4 wins
  • three 2nd place finishes
  • one 4th place
  • delegates from 6 of the states
• Huckabee
  • 1 win
  • one 2nd place finish
  • two 3rds, three 4ths, and one 5th place finish
  • delegates from 5 of the states
• Paul
  • one each of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th place
  • four 5th place finishes
  • delegates from 2 of the states

Don’t be fooled by the message of the media – Romney has every bit as good a chance at the nomination as McCain if not better. And don’t be fooled by the bravado of Huckabee – his best opportunity is to be a spoiler for Romney (those who still support him are unlikely to support McCain).

Among the Republicans it has been fairly well covered that Giuliani was on his third marriage after a variety of extra-marital affairs, that Thompson was quite publicly a philanderer between his two marriages, and that Gingrich (who narrowly decided not to run) was having an affair that would end the second of his three marriages while he was prosecuting Bill Clinton for an affair that failed to end his marriage. Virtually nothing has been said about the extra-marital activities of McCain that ended his first marriage.

Among the Democrats I vaguely recalled that Biden was on his second marriage after his first wife died in a car crash. So a second marriage with a sterling personal history. I also remembered that Kucinich was married to a wife half his age – turns out this is his third marriage. to be fair to all the candidates I looked at those who I had no indication of having any reputation for familial instability and discovered that Dodd is in his second marriage. While Clinton seems to have a sound record personally on marriage there is always the specter of her husband to scare away any expectation of a scandal free term in the white house on those grounds.

This is not intended to malign any of the candidates – it was really a fact check against the gut reaction. Like most other people I believe each person has the ability to change their habits and lives but it was disturbing that so many of the Republican candidates had rocky marital histories while so few of the democrats did. It was also disturbing to see how much more was made of the personal failings of those Republican candidates when nothing was said of similar situations for democratic candidates (Dodd and Thompson have eerily similar marital histories but only Thompson’s history was ever mentioned that I can recall.)

If GOP voters really believe in family values it would be hard to tell based on many of the leaders that are coming forward for the party.

Senator John McCain has long aroused almost unanimous opposition from the leaders of the right. Accusing him of crimes against conservative orthodoxy like voting against a big tax cut and opposing a federal ban on same-sex marriage, conservative activists have agitated for months to thwart his Republican presidential primary campaign.

That, however, was before he emerged this week as the party’s front-runner.

Since his victory in the Florida primary, the growing possibility that Mr. McCain may carry the Republican banner in November is causing anguish to the right. Some, including James C. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, say it is far too late for forgiveness.

But others, faced with the prospect of either a Democrat sitting in the White House or a Republican elected without them, are beginning to look at Mr. McCain’s record in a new light.

Once the parties have chosen their nominees (meaning not yet) it is important for voters who lean toward one party or another to look at the candidate for their chosen party and decided if that candidate represents them enough to earn their vote. The problem in the above example is that this should not be happening before the nominee is chosen. During the primary elections is the nest time to go vote your conscience. That is the time to speak up and cast your vote for someone you can support. If the eventual nominee was not someone you could support in the primaries then it is time to take another look and decide if they might be “good enough.”

Settling for good enough too early is what leads to elections where 60% of voters feel like they are choosing the lesser of two evils when they go to the ballot box.

I don’t have to hate John McCain (and I don’t) to oppose him in the primary election. He does not represent me close enough to earn my primary vote. That does not mean that I could not vote for him in November if he is the nominee (that depends on who his opponent is) but my vote is wasted if I give up now. If I vote for the front runner in the primary contest when only 10% of the delegates have been awarded merely because they are the front runner then I am guilty of letting other people choose how I will vote. If I am not going to choose how I vote then I have no business participating in the political process.