Tag: 2008

Categories
National politics

Primary Season

The New York Times has a prime example of voters approaching elections the wrong way:

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.

Categories
National politics

A Voters Guide

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for me to offer a voters guide to Utah’s presidential primary next week. Here it is.

First and most importantly – go vote. Even if you have no particular interest in politics you should get into the habit of participating in this “government by the people.”

Second – if you are going to  vote you need to pick a single candidate because we don’t have instant runoff voting. For those who still need to pick a candidate – here are your four candidates and two dividing issues to help you choose. (If you don’t want to vote for one of these four you should have already made your choice.)

The two choice issues are party compatibility and change vs status quo.

If you prefer the Republican view your choices are Mitt Romney or John McCain. If you lean Democratic you may choose Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. If you want to see a change you can choose Mitt Romney or Barack Obama (not that the change of Mitt Romney is the same change as you would find with Barack Obama). If you like the status quo you can select John McCain or Hillary Clinton. So now, in alphabetical order, here are the individual candidates and what they offer.

Hillary Clinton – she would bring all the advantages of having a woman in power (I don’t see what advantages are related to one gender over the other, but that’s what she offers). Her baggage includes her husband who has demonstrated a willingness to insert himself into the public discussion and a penchant for breeding divisiveness (as if we didn’t have enough divisiveness already). Hillary not only represents the status quo, but she guarantees – by virtue of her name – that most of the country won’t leave the partisan rancor that we have seen for more than a decade.

John McCain – he brings the advantage of serving 26 years in federal office. He knows how our political system currently works. His baggage is that he has spent 26 years in Washington D.C. Chances are pretty good that he has friends there who are invested in keeping the current system.

Barack Obama –  he has the advantage of not serving 26 years in federal office. He also has an impressive ability to inspire people and look towards the future. His baggage is that “he doesn’t have enough experience.” He has been a U.S. Senator for only four years. I’m not sure why the senate is such a guaranteed training ground for a president other than it gets you close to the action to know how things work. It seems to me that if you can’t figure it out within four years I have no confidence that you can figure it out in 8 years, or 26 years either. By the way, I think that the way Barack Obama canceled his campaign appearance in deference to president Hinckley’s funeral and personally offered his condolences to President Monson was very dignified. Many candidates would have simply expected a smaller crowd or silently called of their event.

Mitt Romney – he has the advantage of a wide variety of experience with positions of authority and no excess of experience in government. His baggage is that some people don’t trust him, some people associate him with the current administration (based on party affiliation), and some people dislike him for both of the preceding reasons.

There you have it. Make your choice. I think it’s obvious that I favor change over the status quo. I hope you do too. It would be a nice change if we had high voter turnout on Tuesday.

Categories
National politics State

And Then There Were Two (Each)

The results of Florida’s primary have functionally whittled the Republican field to two candidates. no longer is there the possibility that Giuliani will suddenly jump back into the front runners circle. No matter what other candidates may hang around there are really only two candidates among the Republicans – Romney and McCain – who have a reasonable expectation of getting the nomination. Similarly, the Democrats buried any hopes of Edwards rising as a contender after his dismal third place finish in South Carolina leaving only two candidates – Obama and Clinton – with any legitimate shot at the nomination.

It’s time to start pushing for Obama here in Utah since there is no Republican contest in Utah’s primary.

Categories
National politics

Uncommitted in Michigan

In case this election cycle was not convoluted enough already we now get to approach the Michigan primary. The combination of having an open primary and having the DNC strip the delegates from Michigan for moving their primary into January meant that we faced the prospect of Democrats in Michigan voting in the Republican primary which does nothing to make the Republican contest any clearer. All the major Democratic candidates promised not to campaign in Michigan and Obama and Edwards went so far as to leave their names off the ballot in Michigan so the only major choice on the Democratic ballot there is Clinton. Now comes the news that Obama and Edwards are encouraging their supporters in Michigan to vote “Uncommitted” rather than allow Clinton to sweep that state.

From the sound of things, having all their delegates stripped by the DNC does not actually indicate that they have no delegates. I’d love for someone to explain how that works for me, but NPR reported that if “Uncommitted” receives 15% or more in a district then those delegates could later support Obama or Edwards.

If Michigan Democrats take this course there would be more confidence in the Republican results there. If they don’t then it really makes you wonder how satisfying this “victory” would be for Clinton. It reminds me of the Iraqi elections under Saddam Hussein – Mr. President-for-Life just loved getting 99.9 – 100% support as the only candidate on the ballot with citizens being required to “participate.”

Categories
politics State

Bloggers – Turn Out Utah

Earlier today, before significant numbers of ballots had been counted, the news coming out of New Hampshire was that turnout was way up and some precincts were requesting more ballots. In response to that, JM Bell and Misty Fowler each suggested that we’d love to have that problem in Utah. The more I think about that the more I am convinced that not only would we love to have that “problem” but have four weeks to actively work to achieve that in our state.

I’ve suggested before that any election with high turnout is a good election. Let’s make this into such an election. Starting now, let’s light up the Utah Political Blogosphere with ideas and thoughts to inspire people to turn out and vote in the primary election. Misty has set a good example by posting reminders about registration deadlines and information about how to register. What else can we do to encourage people to participate?

People all around the country have wondered why Iowa and New Hampshire should have so much influence on our elections – let’s show that Utahns can be as politically involved as Iowans.

If you are interested in pushing for this let me know – share your ideas of how we can encourage people online and offline to get to the polls. If you don’t think that higher turnout is valuable, convince me that low turnout has any benefit to our state or our nation.

Categories
National politics

The Pull of Youth

I can’t really explain why the following passage stuck in my mind from Frank Richs’ column in the New York Times yesterday. Something about it just caught my attention and has been hanging on in the background ever since. Speaking of the winners of the Iowa caucuses:

The two men are the youngest candidates in the entire field, the least angry and the least inclined to seek votes by saturation-bombing us with the post-9/11 arsenal of fear. They both radiate the kind of wit and joy (and, yes, hope) that can come only with self-confidence and a comfort in their own skins. They don’t run from Americans who are not in their club. Mr. Obama had no problem winning over a conclave of white Christian conservatives at Rick Warren’s megachurch in Orange County, Calif., even though he insisted on the necessity of condoms in fighting AIDS. Unlike the top-tier candidates in the G.O.P. presidential race, or the “compassionate conservative” president who refused for years to meet with the N.A.A.C.P., Mr. Huckabee showed up last fall for the PBS debate at the historically black Morgan State University and aced it.

The “they” who did not see the cultural power of these men, of course, includes not just the insular establishments of both their parties but the equally cloistered echo chamber of our political journalism’s status quo. It would take a whole column to list all the much-repeated Beltway story lines that collapsed on Thursday night.

One thing that struck me was the admission that the established leaders of the parties and the professionals of political journalism can’t grasp what is happening in this year’s primaries. The second thing was the comment that these are the two youngest candidates. I had known that Obama was the youngest candidate, but I had never really considered the age of Huckabee. Back before Huckabee was a top candidate I noticed in my study of the candidates that Mitt Romney was the youngest of the major Republican candidates and he was a couple of months older than Hillary who was the oldest of the major Democratic candidates. That was an interesting split between the two parties in my mind.

Looking into the ages now I find that Huckabee is two years younger than the next youngest candidate (John Edwards) and only 6 years older than Obama. I wonder if part of this is more than just the rhetoric of change, but the evidence that the electorate is ready to pass the reins of leadership over to a younger generation. If Huckabee goes on to get the Republican nomination there is only one viable Democrat left who could represent the Baby Boom generation in the general election – that would be Hillary Clinton (unless by some miracle Rill Richardson can leap from 4th place to 1st among the Democrats).

Categories
life politics

Iowa Caucuses

No, I’m not liveblogging nor am I going to analyze the results. I do wonder why I find it so fascinating to watch the results come in. That’s the same question I asked myself in November 2006 as I watched the results between Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown. The difference is in 2006 I was happy early on when Ashdown was slightly ahead (the more democratic areas seemed to report first) and I sat and watched as all the lemming votes floated in for Hatch to win.

Thankfully this time there was no such turn of fortune. Obama won among the Democrats by a very respectable margin and I am left to wonder how Hillary will spin her third place finish, especially as the later votes show her falling further behind Edwards rather than keeping right up with him. Huckabee won quickly among the Republicans so that I could turn my attention to wondering which candidates would drop out. My only disappointment is that Ron Paul could not stay closer to McCain and Thompson.

Categories
National politics

Ron Paul Running Mate

I have often wondered who Ron Paul would choose as a running mate. I got my answer from Phil Harris. Alan Keyes joined the race for the Republican nomination long after I stopped doing candidate endorsements, but when I looked at his positions I found someone who was ideologically very similar to Dr. Paul on most issues.

Dr. Keyes is light years behind Dr. Paul organizationally and financially, nor does he inspire the same fervor among his supporters, but he seems to bring a similar love and understanding of the Constitution. Another advantage would be that Dr. Keyes, being black, would quell the baseless fears of those who dislike the small financial support that Dr. Paul has received from members of some white-pride types of fringe groups. Dr. Paul would demonstrate that their prejudices are not connected to him.

I’m not saying that this would happen, only that I have finally seen someone who would seem like a good running mate for Dr. Paul.

Categories
National politics

GOP Meltdown

I have written previously about my views on social conservatives abandoning the party in 2008 if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani. I have been interested in the various articles about why they would, or wouldn’t go through with that threat. Some of the people suggesting that this is a bluff, or a poor choice, show that they do not really understand the people who are set against Giuliani. I have read some columnists who think that this is just a childish stunt. Others believe that the social conservatives have been given short-shrift in the GOP coalition and are not surprised by their desire to flex their muscles.

I argued that the social conservatives needed to support a single candidate rather than just opposing a single candidate. It has been nice to see others who feel the same way. Another convincing suggestion for social conservatives is that they need to work harder at winning the hearts and minds of other factions of the GOP coalition.

Based on what I am hearing I would bet on one of four candidates getting the Republican nomination: Rudy Giuliani – if the social conservatives don’t coalesce around another candidate, Mitt Romney – if they are really afraid of Rudy, Mike Huckabee – if they just can’t bring themselves to back a Latter Day Saint, or Ron Paul – if his extremely committed and growing core of followers can break through to mainstream voters (meaning those who are more laid back about their politics and thus are less likely to go seeking a candidate who is not at the top of the MSM listing of candidates).

Because I don’t believe that social conservative leaders are bluffing about Giuliani, I predict that all of the other Republicans have a better shot in the general election that Rudy does.

Categories
politics

Candidate Compatibility

Overall Candidate ResultsI found the results of this candidate compatibility calculator interesting. The calculator consists of 23 issues that you rate your support as Yes/No/unsure and the importance of the issue as High/Medium/Low. I visited to find out what candidate my views supposedly corresponded with. I have been surprised by some calculators before. Aside from the top candidate I thought that the calculator did pretty well with me (My Candidate Matchup). I may agree generally with John Cox on the issues, but I don’t know that he is much more prepared than I am to be President (except that he’s over 35). I was disappointed to see that until I expanded the list of top candidates and found that Mike Huckabee has the same percentage of compatibility with my views followed by Ron Paul. Mitt Romney, John McCain and (surprisingly) Tom Tancredo were tied below that followed by Fred Thompson. I knew that the calculator was right to put Rudy Giuliani at the bottom among the Republicans on my list (below a Democrat no less).

When I saw the results I was surprised to see the aggregate results which show that 55% of respondents lined up with Republicans when the prevailing wisdom is that Democrats have the edge in the 2008 election. Complicating this surprise is the fact that the number one individual candidate with the for respondents overall was Mike Gravel – a Democrat. Perhaps one of the reasons for this interesting combination of results is that the scoring does not penalize candidates who oppose your position on issues of high importance to you – they are scored the same as candidates who take no position on the issues of high importance to you. Perhaps the high success for Mike Gravel is that he is undeclared on most issues where there is not much consensus on the issue. This would allow him to get points with every respondent who did not list the issue as being of high importance.

UPDATE: I used the calculator again and took a stance on some of the issues I had marked as unsure before. This time Ron Paul topped my list. More interestingly Rudy Giuliani was now significantly below two Democrats and tied with a third. (Is it any wonder that I won’t vote for him?)