Anyone see this image posted front and center on Drudge? It is from Senator Obama’s press conference Friday, and it has something new. No, not that. Rather, the sign on the podium- it says, “The Office of the President Elect”. Hmm.

I have scoured the Constitution of the United States of America, and nowhere do I see a provision of such an official office. Of course, the President-Actual can create and demolish Cabinet posts, but I scoured the news as well and did not find anything about President Bush having done this for “the Office of the President Elect”. Nor do I know of any past President having done this.

So I am forced to ask- when/where/what/how was this created? As a history buff, I am quite curious to find out the answer, as sometimes the creation of new governmental offices reflects historic events in the country. Of course, Sen. Obama’s election itself is historic, but as he is the not the first person in this bigger-picture position, I do not see the necessity of having created this office.

Did you notice- the office already has an Official Seal as well, meaning it must be real.

My Point: Hubris much?

Seriously, I do not remember President Bush or President Clinton having any such signs between December and January, and I am too young to remember beyond that. If anyone really does remember or has images, articles, etc. about such things with past Presidents, I really would like to hear/see about them; please post a comment if you have such evidence one way or the other.

By the way, did you notice that when asked “Will you stick to your plan to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 per year?” that he did not answer one way or the other?

(All appropriate credit for the “sign” joke to the movie “My Date with Drew”.)

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

-Three states voted to ban gay marriage, including Florida, where 60% of the vote was required, and California, which is notoriously liberal. Gay marriage bans are now 30-for-30 out of our fifty states. This supports two major theses, the first of which is that we are still a center-right country. There was much talk on the networks last night about a “tectonic shift” in the makeup of the American electorate, but this is ridiculous, as 55 million people voted against Barack Obama-the-anointed. Second, the perfect track record of these ballot initiatives helps the argument that gay marriage is fundamentally unacceptable across human nature. You would figure that somewhere, in some state, with some particular demographic population, that such a vote would fail, but it has not, including in those votes were a supermajority was required. In fact, it was exit-polled that both the CA and FL votes this year were supported by over 70% of African-Americans (of whom about 90% voted for Obama) and over 50% of Hispanics, indicating that the sanctity of marriage is a universal one, regardless of what some “progressives” might have us think. Of note, Arkansas voters also banned gay couples from adopting children; it seems that people in the heartland believe that kids deserve a mom and a dad. All my point here is emphasizing that the people voted for these things, so nobody can claim that conservative lawmakers or judges or whomever are trumping the will of the people; these results are America.

-The GOP losses in Congress appear to be limited. It’s possible that the Dems will have only 56 Senate seats (or less, depending on Lieberman) when it seemed very possible that they could have 60. Also, the GOP may have lost only 20 House seats instead of the 25-30 that were predicted. The analysis here is that John McCain lost his election; the GOP brand does not seem to have done it for him. That said, I am not surprised that the GOP brand appears marred, and frankly I think it’s high time that we have more Eric Cantors and less Elizabeth Doles, even if it means fewer GOP seats overall.

Read More →

Inspiring words from the first Republican President:

Over at the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol writes:

“If Obama wins, we wish him well. But for now, we can only echo the words of the 30-year-old Abraham Lincoln. On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents “that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election” and that Lincoln’s opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:

Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it… The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just… Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so.

As it happens, the Whig ticket Lincoln supported won that 1840 election. So might, against the odds, the party of Lincoln win this year.”

Of course, William Henry Harrison, who won that 1840 election, died in office, and so did Lincoln. But do not fret! For I have more words from Lincoln to rally the conservative cause, these from his speech at Cooper Union in New York (emphasis mine):

Read More →

Over at the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol writes:

“If Obama wins, we wish him well. But for now, we can only echo the words of the 30-year-old Abraham Lincoln. On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents “that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election” and that Lincoln’s opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:

Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it… The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just… Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so.

As it happens, the Whig ticket Lincoln supported won that 1840 election. So might, against the odds, the party of Lincoln win this year.”

Of course, both William Henry Harrison, who won that 1840 election, died in office, and so did Lincoln. But do not fret! For I have more words from Lincoln to rally the conservative cause, these from his speech at Cooper Union in New York (emphasis mine):

Read More →

If you think she’s dumb, then I encourage you to use your own smarts to build a time machine and forever send yourself to pre-1776 times; you’ll like it there.

Throughout the general election campaign, I have been thoroughly disgusted with people who demonize Sarah Palin. Since the end of August, there has been no shortage of folks who choose to say that they “can’t stand” her or even “hate” her. Nobody has been able yet to coherently explain to me why they feel this way, but rest assured that it’s not just the media who want her out of the picture. I have been at times physically sickened by the personal smear jobs- the Alaska Independence Party (she NEVER was associated with them, unlike Barack Obama the avowed Marxist Socialist, or Michelle Obama the real American-hater), the Rape Kit Fees (of which there is no proof whatsoever), the idea that she shouldn’t have had a kid at an older age (my mother had perfectly healthy twins at an even later age), and the kicker- the absolutely ridiculous theory that Trig was not her son, but her grandson (Liberals love science but apparently don’t care much about DNA when it becomes an inconvenient truth). Honestly, I have been physically sick to find that Americans could go to such lengths to personally hack down a yet-unknown political figure. Really, I understand that people might seriously disagree with her politics, but the personal hate is just unreal.

Recently, these claims have died down (maybe because they are all disproved), but there is a new one to take their place- “She sounds dumb.” (Which is usually followed by, “And we don’t need another dumb President after this one.”) So I ask people why they say this, and of course the response is “She doesn’t talk like an the rest of our educated politicians.” WHAT?!?! So let me get this straight: there are people out there who like (or perhaps even trust?) smooth-talking politicians??? Man, where the hell am I?

To all those who will not vote for McCain-Palin because you think that Sarah “is too normal to be one step away from the Presidency”, I say this:

Read More →

Over at Facebook, a liberal friend of mine posted a link to a NYT article regarding Sarah Palin and the Wasilla rape kit issue. I responded that the article was a smear because it purported allegations as if they were facts, and I linked to Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot article that mentions how, at a minimum, there is no evidence proving that Palin made or wanted any rape victims to pay for their own kits.

Then, of course, all of my friend’s friends decided to get in on the action. The ensuing conversation (of which my original friend did not participate) went like this:

Read More →

Remember what set off the current Wall Street crisis?

The first huge company to go belly-up was Countrywide. Who bought them? Bank of America.

Now, Merrill Lynch has gone to… Bank of America.

Are we really supposed to think that BofA just loves the risk of bad entries on its books or that its mission statement is to be benevolent to other companies in crisis?

Here’s an article that inadvertently clears up the issue by reading between lines:

Read More →

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie, September 10, 1813. On that day, Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry led the young United States of America to naval victory in Put-In-Bay, Ohio, against the British during the War of 1812.

A super-quick history:

Perry was aboard the USS Lawrence, which had been named after Captain James Lawrence. Lawrence had died earlier in the year, aboard the USS Chesapeake, in a battle just off of Boston; as he passed away, his dying words were reported to have been, “Don’t give up the ship; fight her ‘till she sinks!” The Lawrence came under heavy fire from the HMS Queen Charlotte and became virtually, but not completely, destroyed. When no more guns aboard the ship were working, Perry personally and almost miraculously rowed across the lake, amidst the rest of the fighting, to the USS Niagara, where he hoisted the flag “DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP”. From that point, he commanded the Niagara and other American gunboats to enclose and fire on the British ships, inflicting massive damage to them and forcing them to collide amongst themselves amidst the confusion. With this, the British surrendered, which Perry forced them to do officially aboard the floating remains of the Lawrence.

In the aftermath, Perry wrote the following to William Henry Harrison, in pencil on an envelope:

Dear General:

We have met the enemy and they are ours. Two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop.

Yours with great respect and esteem,

O.H. Perry

My Point: To this day, “Don’t give up the ship!” has been a rally cry for the U.S. Navy as a result of Perry’s conviction to not give up; I believe it is something that all Americans should hearken to. As we head into September 11, and we think about what happened in 2001, it is especially important to remember the words of Lawrence and the flag of Perry. The United States has terrible and abnormal enemies out there who wish to inflict much more harm upon us than sinking our battleships, and they will not play politics or wait for official war declarations to do so. If we do not recognize the absolute existence of such enemies, and we do not fight them until they sink, then we will lose our own ship and everything it carries, which in one word is: Freedom.

The Niagara has been raised and is now on display at Erie, PA.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP!

More at Commodore Perry.

If you were watching John McCain’s acceptance speech at the RNC on Fox, then this image was hard to miss:

After posting recently about Sarah Palin and the 49-star flag, the appearance of a 51-star flag really got my attention. The network kept showing this section, but I could not tell which delegation this was. Most likely, it was Washington, DC, but it could have been anyone in support of DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, or the US Virgin Islands. As a flag nut, I was going berserk wondering a) who are they? and b) why does Fox keep showing the flag?

Read More →

Because Alaska was admitted before July 4, 1959, and Hawaii was admitted after July 4, 1959, the 49-star flag existed from 7/4/1959 to 7/3/1960. By waving it tonight, conservatives can show solidarity with Sarah Palin of Alaska while simultaneously rallying against Barack Obama of Hawaii. This is not, in any way, meant to be anti-Hawaiian, but apparently, Obama would be ok with it if it was, so may as well let ‘em fly!

Tonight, the first Alaskan nominee for either President or VP, Sarah Palin, will be giving her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Tomorrow, the second Arizonan, John McCain, will do the same, and last week, the first Hawaiian, Barack Obama, did so at the DNC. In a remarkable show of American Manifest Destiny, the 48th, 49th, and 50th states are all represented in the POTUS/VP nomination slots of the two major parties. Interestingly enough, the very first state under our Constitution, Delaware, is home to the Democratic VP nominee, Joe Biden.

This is of huge historic significance because it fulfills the current expansion of the United States, forcing us to wonder what might come next. In 1824, Andrew Jackson ran as the first “Western” candidate, from the “frontier” state of Tennessee, but even Tennessee was not as far west as neighboring Missouri, which was already a state at the time. Jackson lost in 1824 but won in 1828. Not for another 100 years would a President have serious ties to a state farther west; Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928, the first President to call a state west of the Mississippi River “home” (California and Iowa). At the time, Arizona and Hawaii were not states, so when Hoover won, he fulfilled American expansionism by representing the westernmost state of California. Moreover, Hoover’s VP, Charles Curtis of Kansas, was also the first VP west of the great river.

Read More →

This was probably totally unintentional, but there have been doubts about the Clintons. I DO NOT say that the Clintons, or that Hillary herself, are/is racist, but to use the following line in her DNC speech when everyone is scrutinizing whether she will support Obama, and everyone is scrutinizing her phraseology in doing so, is, at minimum, a severe lapse in judgment:

“And along the way, America lost two great Democratic champions who would have been here with us tonight. One of our finest young leaders, Arkansas Democratic Chair Bill Gwatney, who believed with all his heart — (applause) — that America and the South should be Democratic from top to bottom.”

Allow me to remind everyone of the South when it was Democratic from top to bottom (very abridged):

Read More →

Everybody is going nuts over how the DNC is split this year in Denver. Will Hillary publicly release her delegates? Will there be a full roll call vote? Will Clinton-backers break for McCain?

Well, here’s an idea: Revamp the VP selection process!

All of the Dems’ current discords could have been prevented if the VP nominee was the second-highest delegate-getter in the primaries. With this, the Dems would be looking at an Obama-Clinton ticket and the GOP would seem like the party of factions.

And what would have happened to the GOP if it did the same? Who knows; we’d likely have a McCain-Romney or a McCain-Huckabee ticket. Whether those sound good or not, they would not be so hotly contested (certainly not like a McCain-Ridge or McCain-Lieberman ticket would be), and it would be hard to argue against candidates who received the most primary votes, even in a year when there is such an open field like this one. It would likely force the quadrennial primaries to run the gambit of the fifty states, too, allowing every state’s vote to count, adding to the legitimacy of the VP nominee.

I am not advocating that we fix the VP selection process in this particular manner. However, I think the DNC is showing how the lack of We the People in the VP nomination process is a big problem. Their party is split, they are facing public catastrophe, and even if Hillary is completely cordial, there will be lingering feelings of distrust and dislike within. That sounds great to conservatives now, but what if it happened to us?

Today is the anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote everywhere in America; it is one of many manifestations of our country’s constant move towards complete popular election of our government. Why, then, do we not get a say in an office as important as the nation’s Number Two?

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More VP possibilities at Commodore Perry.

Is direct suffrage for the Vice Presidency the last obvious unturned stone of the American enfranchising movement? The original Constitution did not let people vote directly for President, Vice President, or Senators, and most states had high property holding requirements (not to mention racial and gender requirements) in order for someone to be able to vote for the U.S. House or other state offices (if those offices were even open to election in the first place). Today, every state lets its citizens over the age of eighteen vote for pretty much anything directly (even the President by binding Electoral College voters) except Vice President of the United States. Given that the Presidential ticket vote is the only nation-wide one, perhaps this makes sense so as to not risk the conflicts as seen through John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr, but is it really in line with the historical American voting movement?

Read More →

Recently, there has been some talk about John McCain potentially offering a one-term Presidency pledge. I, and the term-limiting Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, think that such a thing is ridiculous and unnecessary.

The last real vow of a one-term Presidency was taken by James K. Polk in 1844. Similar to John McCain in 2008, Polk emerged as the unlikely nominee because his party could not agree on other more well-known and “mainstream” candidates. Because he knew that he was not otherwise the frontrunner, Polk pledged to serve only one term. Such a pledge meant a lot back then, because, if elected, Polk would become the youngest person ever to be elected President, and he would be without term limits. Instead of acting like a lame duck, he achieved almost all of his goals and left a legacy to the United States that is one of the most palpable today.

To get to the point, Polk:

• Annexed Texas
• Gained California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and more from the Mexican-American war
• Won sovereignty over Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and more through diplomatic means with Great Britain
• Finalized the making of the US Treasury as a self-functioning entity
• Created the first new Cabinet position under the Constitution

But his expansionist accomplishments were not all smooth sailing. Polk’s request to go to war with Mexico has always been suspect- many (including U.S. Grant) believed that he only wished to expand slavery with new southern territory. The claim is substantiated by the facts that the Texas annexation allowed for up to four more slave states to be created, and that Polk did not live up to his party’s “Fifty-four Forty of Fight” mantra with Oregon Territory. This gave Whigs a lot of political ground for the election of 1848, claiming that he Democrats fought an immoral war (even though they voted for war appropriations in Congress, making the whole situation much like the Iraq war issue today). In the ensuing election, the Whigs won rather handily, although their candidate was Zachary Taylor, a Mexican-American War hero, which contradicted the party’s prior anti-war rhetoric.

My Point: A one-term pledge produces mixed results and is not necessary today. Polk got a lot done in four years, proving that a one-term President could do the same today. On the other hand, Polk took controversial steps in order to accomplish his agenda, putting his party in harm’s way for the following election, which could also happen today. But because modern Presidents have term limits, any President’s second term could be considered a one-term pledge in and of itself. Considering that, and the mixed-result of Polk’s pledge when there were no term limits, there is no reason to bother pledging only one term from the onset.

Of note, Polk died only 103 days after he left office, which remains the shortest time for any President between exiting the Presidency and death. This is relevant because his death is commonly attributed to the stresses that he underwent in office while trying to do everything in four years; remember, he was the youngest to win a Presidential election at the time. Though he might have had cholera as well, it is possible that his poor health after leaving office contributed to a disposition towards contracting the disease in the first place.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry

These responses to the Sedition Acts of 1798, which limited anti-government speech in the wake of the Quasi-War with France, were authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and passed by their respective State Assemblies:

One of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, emphasis mine:

3) Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Part of the Virgina Resolution of 1798, emphasis mine:

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

While I don’t support another nullification crisis, we have to keep fighting agains the un-Fairness Doctrine. In 1798, two whole states told the government to stop infringing on freedom; what will We the People say in 2008?

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

With the Russian-Georgian conflict erupting over South Ossetia, I figure it’s a good time to recall the history of the Union-Confederate conflict over West Virginia. No, the situations are not really close to the same in terms of centuries of ethnic issues or international politics, but some of the themes are very concurrent. Both situations deal with a population split between affinities to their old large dominating powers and the hopes of sticking with newfound independence, and both “separations” are very legally questionable.

Ever since the Shenandoah and areas west of it became settled, the citizens of what is now West Virginia had tried to gain better representation. In 1829, a Constitutional Convention was called for in Virginia, where westerners’ main goals included much greater representation in the state assembly. But, they did not get quite what they wanted, and although the new Constitution was popularly approved state-wide, most westerners voted against it. Over time, the areas of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Ohio River Valley near Wheeling became more and more populous. Since the mountains physically separated these areas from the eastern parts of the state, there was a high Northern influence and a low Southern one; support of abolition rose, as did adherence to other Northern sectional politics.

Then, Virginia’s secession from the United States in May of 1861 prompted what was known as the Wheeling Conventions. At the Second Convention, this one coming after Virginia formally seceded, representatives from the western areas agreed to having a popular vote in the area over whether to form a new state; the vote overwhelmingly passed, amidst a) suspicion that Union soldiers participated illegally, and b) knowledge that many counties did not register any votes because they originally sided with Virginia’s secession from the U.S. But, before sending an application for admission to the Union, the representatives called upon the federal government to recognize them as the official government of old Virginia, so that a new West Virginia could be created pursuant to the Constitutional restrictions on carving new state boundaries from old ones. Such federal recognition gave the Convention grounds to include more counties than were represented originally, including those that did not register votes in the new state creation referendum.

Finally, in April 1863, President Lincoln approved the admission of West Virginia (with its abolitionist state Constitution) as the thirty-fifth American State. But even he expressed concern over the validity of such an act. Since Lincoln adamantly held the position that no state could legally secede from the Union, how could it be consistent for him to recognize a breakaway government of only part of Virginia? On top of that, didn’t the Constitution require the approval of the entire state in order for it to split up? And finally, since it was known that most of the new state actually supported the Confederacy, was all of this really a good idea? In the end, the Union troops’ control of the region was sufficient for Old Abe to give West Virginia the green light.

Ok, so South Ossetia has eons more history behind its conflict, including the USSR, which really bungled things. In addition, the region has been allowed a semi-autonomous rule (mostly peacefully), whereas western Virginia was most definitely under the authority of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the current Georgian-Russian conflict is over South Ossetia to begin with, whereas the creation of West Virginia came was a result of another, already-being-fought conflict.

My Point: Though the differences can seem vast, replace the word “ethnic” concerning South Ossetians with the word “political” concerning West Virginians and things get much clearer. When a group inside a group inside a group (yes, three) tries to find an identity, there’s usually a war involved and the end result is almost never without questions of its legitimacy.

Of course, the West Virginia situation is a microcosm of the entire Confederate States of America, where many areas were split between unionism and secession. I guess it really helps your cause when there are multitudes of allegiant soldiers defending your land at the time when you want to break free. I bet Russia is thinking the same thing.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry.

(h/t TeamAmerica)

Illinois State Senator Terry Link (D-Lake County) is finding his campaign, and likely himself, in a bit of a bind. Having used the typical Chciago Democrat logic that dead people’s pens are mightier than living people’s votes, two of Link’s nominating petition signature gatherers have been indicted by a grand jury. The issue was brought up by Link’s Dem primary opponent, but was not substaniated in time to make a difference on the primary ballot. Of course, the workers were not just volunteers for Link, no. They were paid:

“(Signature-collector) Davison testified before the state board of elections that he got paid by the page,” (prosecuting attorney) Zaler said. “It appears to us that he was just trying to make more money.”

Well, there’s a shock. And while it is not terribly uncommon for such signature collectors to be paid, it seems that Link did not use any good judgment at all in the hiring process:

“I had to be [in Springfield], so I could not be [in Lake County] coordinating things,” said Link, a Waukegan Democrat who leads the party’s Lake County wing and is the Senate majority caucus chairman. “We paid people who were generally unemployed and were trying to help people out.”

Though it’s nice for Link to help the unemployed, perhaps he could have used some sort of follow-up process to ensure that everything was legit. But, alas, he did not.

The article claims that over 1,000 signatures have been verified as authentic, however, so Link can remain on the ballot for the moment. But, the two indicted workers apparently collected about 2700 of the 3300 or so overall signatures; so, in theory, this could get a lot worse for Link very quickly. Oh yeah, and remember, the workers were paid, so “worse” could mean “over”.

Read More →

In response to initial questions about how he viewed Barack Obama’s statements on Georgia, McCain said, “There’s no room for partiship now.”

Given that any lack of support for Georgia could be political suicide right now, this left Obama’s camp with four options:

1) Agree with McCain’s hard-line stance on Georgia and emphasize unity; this would reenforce the widespread concept that Obama just shifts towards whatever McCain says and make Obama look worse

2) Disagree with McCain’s stance but echo the need for unity; this would only make everyone point out how disagreements are not unifying and make Obama look worse

3) Disagree with McCain’s stance and argue loudly against it; this might be Obama’s best option, trying to differentiate his candidacy, but it would really only reenforce the widespread concept that Dems back down when conflict arises (see: Iraq), making Obama look worse

4) Agree with McCain’s stance but make it seem like there’s a difference; this might lead to aggressive and belligerent name-calling and be Obama’s worst option.

Looks like Obama chose Option 4 anyway. So, what did McCain say in response to reporters who asked him about the name-calling coming from Obama’s camp? He said, “This isn’t a time for partisanship and sniping. Hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people whose lives are being taken and who are being driven from their homes.”

Given that any lack of support for Georgia could be political suicide right now, this leaves Obama’s camp with four options…

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

We all know that Ohio is a swing state, but now the stakes are going up. Due to recent polls showing a steady McCain lead in the state, Obama’s team had hinted that they might abandon Buckeye-land in favor of places like Virginia. But now, Ohio might be back in play:

Ohio has created a window in the election calendar that would allow residents instant gratification — register one minute, vote the next.
…
The move will benefit Obama, who enjoys a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month. If Obama’s campaign were able to tap into college campuses with one-stop voting, it would add thousands of votes to his tally in a state where, in 2004, John Kerry lost to President Bush by only about 118,000 votes, putting Bush over the top in the electoral count.

Of the more than 470,000 students enrolled in Ohio’s public colleges and universities in 2006, the most recent figures available, nine out of 10 were Ohio residents, the state Board of Regents said. To register to vote in Ohio, a person must be a resident of the state for at least 30 days immediately before an election.

Yikes! But, since most young college liberals scream on street corners before the election and do nothing to actually cast a vote, we might be able to take advantage. Even so, there is a big problem with the way this law is being implemented right now, and we have to do something.

Read More →

Could George W. Bush’s stance on the Russian invasion of Georgia actually have good merit? I argue yes; whether he knows it or not is up for debate. My conclusion is based on the “splendid little war” of 1898, the Spanish-American War.

By 1898, Cuba’s fight for independence against Spain was beginning to seriously affect the United States. First, there was a human rights issue where hundreds of thousands of people were dying in “reconcentration camps”, and second, there was rioting that caused concern over Americans and American interests in Havana. Though most of America did not want war with Spain originally, the USS Maine was sent to Havana in January to let everyone know that we were serious about protecting our interests; in February, it blew up unexpectedly, and though we still didn’t go to war, public opinion was finally pushing strong for it. In April, President William McKinley, who had quite the anti-war disposition, requested enough force only to help Cuba become independent and not to go after Spain in general. But Congress shortly thereafter issued demands (signed by McKinley) directly to the Spanish government, imploring them to get out of the island. Spain’s response: War on America. As a result, not only was Cuba’s independence secured, but the United States also received control over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines after only 109 days.

Currently, we have a situation where a recently independent country and ally of ours is being attacked and suppressed by its former ruler. In addition, there are surrounding countries that are of high interest to the United States because they are emerging democracies, also under threat of the same former ruler. The Georgian situation, though it is fighting to maintain its independence and not to first achieve it, is extremely similar to that of Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines in 1898 from the American perspective. We only want to help Georgia and do not wish to have war with Russia, but if it came to that point, then it would serve as a tool to strengthen other interests of ours that are currently under similar threats. We have even begun to follow the course as we did in 1898, essentially demanding that Russia leave Georgia while expecting that they will not.

Read More →