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

-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.

-This “mandate” business opens the door for conservatives in 2010. Already, we are seeing extreme partisanship in Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff (wasn’t Barack the “post-partisan” candidate?). Further, Obama is getting a crap economy that showed it doesn’t like him by losing 500 points on the DJIA today. (Yahoo! Finance top headline: “Stocks Plunge as Investors Ponder Obama Presidency; Dow Falls Nearly 500- AP”) He also inherits a war in Iraq that may prove to be his undoing no matter what, whether it’s because he loses his 2012 base vote by breaking his promise and keeping troops there or because he pulls out soon as promised but the region goes to heck. Finally, he will have to deal with all of his international expectations, and given Canada’s and Europe’s increasing conservatism (see: Sarkozy), this might be quite difficult. Really there’s more than these things, but the point is that any “mandate” is almost a kiss of death where anything that goes wrong is blown out of proportion as a failure to execute (see: 1992, 2004). Given this, real conservatives, and not just GOP party politicians (who have clearly been rejected) can start gearing up now with honest hopes.

-It is now proven that people like Sarah Palin can succeed. “People like Sarah Palin” include: outside-the-beltways, ideological conservatives, women, moms, “plain-talkers”, pro-life women, moose hunters, Miss America winners, self-made family people, and others of the like. Do not believe what is said about her having hurt the ticket; she helped the ticket and excited people, no matter how much experience she had or didn’t have.

-The mainstream media has been outed as ridiculously liberal. One flashy new example here.

-Oh, yes, we elected a black person as our President freely and Constitutionally. Why is this last on my list? Not because it doesn’t deserve serious mention especially on a historical blog, but because I am sick of this being the top headline. (Why isn’t the headline that we elected the first Marxist socialist?) If the idea is that we have transcended race and that race relations in America are finally at ease, then the point should be that we elected Barack Obama over John McCain, not that we elected a black person. Therefore, I hope that we can praise and/or criticize Obama and his administration freely based on its policies and actions; I don’t want to hear anything about how any such criticism might be racist (now or in the future) and I don’t want to hear ever again that people who vote against a minority candidate must be racist. From now on, all campaigns, candidates, office holders, and election losers, must be just that, without regard to race. By the way, voters in Nebraska have overturned affirmative action there and it’s possible at the moment that Coloradans might do the same. This is a very good thing, as the ultimate goal has always been to judge people “on the content of their character” only, whether they are seeking a job, admission to a school, or the Presidency of the United States.

Ok, enough for now. I don’t want to make it sound like this is all good, because it’s not. In fact, it may be horrible, and the Rahm Emanuel selection really makes it look like it will be. I will post soon about my first gut emotional reaction (negative, of course) to the election results; it will be more historically-based, I promise.

Hey, Conservatives- DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP!

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):

“[Senator Douglas said,] ‘Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.’

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: ‘What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?’

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: ‘The Constitution of the United States.’ That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government first went into operation, and [] subsequently framed amendments.“

My Point: We are still under the same present government; Conservatives believe in the importance of this, while Liberals do not understand the significance of the threats that they cause to it. Now let’s go out and vote and fight for what’s Right!

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry

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):

“[Senator Douglas said,] ‘Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.’

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: ‘What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?’

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: ‘The Constitution of the United States.’ That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government first went into operation, and [] subsequently framed amendments.“

My Point: We are still under the same present government; Conservatives believe in the importance of this, while Liberals do not understand the significance of the threats that they cause to it. Now let’s go out and vote and fight for what’s Right!

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry

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:

My (extended) Point: Since the Boston Tea Party, Americans have been fighting for the rights of the common man. From the first shot of the Revolution, we proved that we are willing to give our lives for these rights. For two hundred thirty-two years, Americans have both rallied and died constantly trying to increase suffrage, enhance representation, protect civil rights, ensure equal rights, and allow for the American Dream that even the common man can work hard and achieve success in a free society. In fact, this country is about government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and who is more “the people” than the common man or woman? And for anyone to tell me that a candidate is unqualified because s/he sounds “too normal”, I will say to them that they are the true ignoramus because they have No Concept! of how this country works and what we stand for, how we have always been dedicated to the American Dream of the “normal” citizen, and how we have been Aching! since 1776 to oust the British, to shed the Federalists, to kill the bank, to rid us of the aristocracy and slaveocracy, to bust the trusts, and to tear down these walls! In fact, here is a picture of some of the people to whom I am alluding:

I challenge you to study what the United States has meant to the “normal” person, to discover what this country has done to give freedom to “normal” people in unprecedented manners, and then continue to argue that Governor Palin is “too normal” to be a national leader; even if you disagree with her politics, you won’t be able to make this particular claim against her ever again.

Personally, I believe that many of the smears against Palin are a result of jealousy; I really do. A common woman has done extraordinary things without pulling strings or committing fraud or making outlandish claims or doing any of the bad things that we normally associate with politicians. Hell, she didn’t even do it by playing the boys’ games like Hillary Clinton did. Sarah Palin is successful because she is herself, and not because she plays the games or walks the walk or talks the talk. Many people, I believe, resent that someone like Sarah, who has not done the typical politician jockeying, has achieved so much where they have not, in the same amount of time, starting from essentially the same life station. And while I am not God or even a psychologist, I can tell you one thing- the reason that Palin has made it from hockey mom to VP nominee ain’t because she talks dumb.

And what about that other VP nominee? Well, he’s so smart that he can’t even count to four.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry.

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:

Person 1: She did it. Don’t be a stupe.

Me: This is your evidence? Calling me names? … I find your comment unfortunately typical of many Palin-haters. You offer no evidence, no analysis, and not even any base-level starter argument. I would like to think that anyone who personally hates a candidate, beyond political disagreement (no matter how severe), should first figure out where such internal feelings come from before taking a political argument beyond politics. Perhaps you are not a Palin-hater, but I write this because your comment mirrors them so much.

Person 2: I will sprinkle nut crust on your salad. Is this really the venue to freak a [expletive]? What will you accomplish?

Me: Nothing more or less than posting a link to a political article might or might not accomplish. Nothing more or less than name-calling in lieu of logical argument building might or might not accomplish.

Person 2: Are you just defending Palin for the challenge? It seems like a losing battle.

Me: Got you to pay attention, didn’t I? Hence also why people post articles.

Person 2: You made a big fat [derogatory term] spectacle of yourself is what you did. People post articles not so others can chew them out over it, but so that people will have easier access to the information they may or may not be interested in. All I’m saying is, whether or not the article lied is a matter of journalistic integrity. There’s no reason to go to town over it.

Me: That doesn’t make sense. If I can use Facebook, then I can use the internet to find my own articles just fine, and (my original friendand others know that long before they post such links. And of course nobody wants to be chewed out! It’s called debate, and it’s part of what’s made America great for over 230 years.

Person 2: Posting an article isn’t an invitation for debate.

Me: Sorry; I’ll put my tail between my legs and exercise my First Amendment rights somewhere else, I guess…

Person 1: Victory!

Emphases mine.

Ok, so, what we have here are two examples in the same conversation of absolutely ridiculous claims.

First: If the media flat-out lies, then we can just chalk it up to a question of journalistic integrity and nobody should “go to town over it.” I guess this would mean that all of us who care about the truth are just wasting all of our time since it seems like it’s up to the journalists to be truthful or not, and it wouldn’t be right for anyone to call them on it. That might be fine in some other country, but not in the United States. Unless you’re a liberal.

Second: “Victory” to liberals is defined as the muting of free speech. This first part of the Bill of Rights of the freest country on the face of the earth does not apply to anyone with whom liberals disagree. But is it really a shock that someone who does not support free speech is a Palin-hater? Especially since we had already established that journalistic lies are irrelevant to the public? Can you imagine what would have happened if I actually attacked The One, instead of simply defending Sarah Palin and America? I’d rather not think of it, but I’m sure we’ve all seen the examples of it elsewhere already. [cough]SNL[cough cough]

From my conversation, I have reaffirmd that there are many (I say “many” because we have heard all of this before in other places here) liberals 1) have no logic; 2) do not think it is important to argue about actual point at hand in a debate (in this case, the NYT article); 3) do not care about what is true or what is not; and 4) dislike free speech. If any of these four things can be considered sane in a free democratic society, then I am not aware of it.

For anyone still doubting whether the real hardcore Lefties are actually all that bad, please re-read this post.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

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:

“‘Bank of America will be stronger, larger, and command more business than ever before once this debacle is over.’”

So, they’ll be one of those huge companies, it seems.

“…Combining Merrill Lynch’s wealth management and investment banking operations with Bank of America’s coast-to-coast branch network and deep customer base among the affluent and corporate America is expected to pay big dividends for the combined company.”

Meaning that anything they do might seriously affect a huge number of individuals and businesses alike, most of whom are heavyweights.

“At Monday’s press conference to announce the Merrill Lynch acquisition, [CEO Ken] Lewis said the merger was the ’strategic deal of a lifetime.’”

Because now Mr. Lewis knows that his company is so big, and this its customers are so influential, that if all of these acquisitions fail and flop, Big Brother will be there to save his company and give him his departing monies.

My Point: It is now clear to anyone with a brain that the government will almost certainly bail out huge failing companies and pay their boards’ severance pay. Though the case of Lehman shows that nothing is 100% for sure, I’d say that BofA is taking quite the wise gamble with such odds on its side: either they will thrive on these deals through normal business or they will be bailed out anyway.

Oh, and in case you were wondering whether BofA was simply making good business sense, there’s this:

“‘If these were normal times, this deal would be viewed as a huge success for both companies.’”

Um, so, why did they wait until now? Oh, right, because BofA was waiting to see if it could “bank” on a government safety net.

Watch to see who BofA will buy next; maybe it’ll be the government itself.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

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.

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?

Of course, with John McCain speaking, it was quite a juxtaposition. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a territory of the U.S. from 1903 to 1979 (with joint American-Panamanian control until 1999). In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt evoked the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and bull-moosed his way into building the canal, following Panamanian independence from Colombia and the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, granting the United States full and everlasting control over the lands five miles to either side of the canal. Then, in 1977, President Carter signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, putting a dated end to the Zone’s official territorial status.

I find it quite interesting that some group was at the RNC, during McCain’s speech, advocating for one of our territories to become a state when McCain himself was born in a place that America freely handed back to its indigenous peoples. Were they merely supporting his Constitutional eligibility to become President by recognizing that he was born in an American territory to American citizens? Do they want us to take back the Zone? Or was this whole thing a fluke of which territorial RNC delegation the Fox cameras happened to be pointed at?

My Point: At the end of his speech, McCain rallied, “America makes history!” and this is so true, especially in relation to expansionism. Much of our historic endeavors have related to making the world a freer place live, both by acquiring territory and admitting new states (such as McCain’s home of Arizona and Sarah Palin’s home of Alaska) but also by helping other people around the world break the bonds of oppression without any sort of annexation. The flag displayed at the RNC last night brings up the notion that we are not done yet with either with our territories or our worldwide mission. Though we have not admitted a state since 1959 and have not flat-out annexed a territory (larger than a zone or base) from another country since 1898, these issues will come up sooner rather than later and our leaders will have to deal with them. Given that the Canal Zone, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii are all represented with this year’s candidates for POTUS and VP, it will be interesting to see what happens.

None of this answers why Fox kept showing the flag.

Btw, I think that nine stars across is too many. Based on flag history, I would advocate for the return of the Great Star pattern, like the one shown here (though more exact and better proportioned), but with ten stars to a side, making 50, and one star in the middle for 51.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

More at Commodore Perry

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.



Now, we find ourselves choosing a President between the last of the “Lower 48” states and the last overall state without a clear 51st state on the horizon. In fact, America is in the longest new-state-drought of its history at just over 49 years. With Puerto Rican referendums failing to gain enough momentum and the complacency of the status quo with Washington, DC, we may just stay here for a while.

My Point: Alaska calls itself “The Last Frontier” … is it? So often, we hear of American history as defined by the concept of the frontier, but we are now in a world where our territories are small in size and number, there are no real “colonies” to be had, and most territorial disputes turn into multi-national wars. As a result, our expansionism has turned from gaining land to protecting and spreading democracy, but even that can only go so far. Though there is still a lot of work to do at home, I maintain that at some point in this Century, the frontier-minded United States will have to ask itself, “What now?”

President Eisenhower was the last President to usher in new states. He did this for three- Ohio, Alaska, and Hawaii. In 1953, it was discovered that although President Thomas Jefferson signed a bill approving the application of Ohio, Congress never officially admitted the state outright. On August 7, 1953, Eisenhower signed a retroactive Congressional bill, making Ohio the official 17th state.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP.

More at Commodore Perry

“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):

My Point: U. G. L. Y.

In context, Hillary seems to have merely been referring to the Democrats’ desires to make electoral inroads in what has become a solidly Republican South in recent years. It is completely understandable, on such a basis, that she may not have been alluding to Jim Crow laws at all, especially given that she herself tried to make a state like Arkansas more blue for the politics of it. However, she really should have thought about this, considering that the Democratic nominee for President will be the first major party black nominee; to me, her statements are absolutely glaring.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

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.

The original Constitution wording, which had each Elector cast two votes, allowed for two possible ways to become VP, neither of which required the VP to have obtained a majority of Electoral College votes:

• 1) In an election where at least one Presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes, the VP would be the candidate with the second-most such votes. If two candidates tied for the top spot, then the House of Representatives would choose a final winner and the VP would be the loser of that vote.
• 2) If no candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes, then the House of Representatives would choose amongst the top five such vote-getters for a final winner. But, the VP would not be the runner-up of the House vote; instead, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 stated, “In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.” This meant that if the House chose the candidate with the second, third, fourth, or fifth most Electoral College votes as President, then the original Electoral College vote plurality winner would become the VP.

The history under the original wording is short but complex. In 1789, everyone assumed that George Washington would become the first President, so in reality, the other candidates were all vying to be Vice President. In addition, there was not an established enough party system structure by that time, so in the end, having a “ticket” was not really important. However, things changed by 1792, when there were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans; but, the party affects were still not greatly pronounced because Washington was again expected to be elected President. Then, in 1796, Americans witnessed its only truly open-field election ever. Though John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were seen as their parties’ leaders, they did not establish President-VP tickets; therefore, the country was almost certain to see one of them win the Presidency and the other one win the VP slot, which is exactly what happened, causing much strain during the Adams administration. Finally, in 1800, the parties figured out the necessity of having a ticket, but this, coupled with the two-vote-per-Elector system, caused the winners to tie in the Electoral College; though Aaron Burr was technically the VP half of the ticket, his tie with Jefferson could have resulted in the House choosing Burr for President had he not so personally upset Alexander Hamilton the year before.

But then everything changed. The Twelfth Amendment took away the “runner-up” concept and changed the Electoral College so that each Elector voted once for President and once for Vice President. But, there are still two ways to become VP:

• 1) A candidate who receives a majority of Electoral votes for VP becomes VP, period.
• 2) If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes for VP, then the Senate chooses the final winner from amongst the candidates “from the two highest numbers on the list.” This does not mean the top two people; therefore, any candidate who was tied for first or second place (and there could be ties for both) in the Electoral College VP vote must be considered by the Senate.

Since the Amendment’s inception, there has not really been a problem with the President-Vice President dynamic. Everyone has understood that a Presidential candidate’s pick for VP is not a questioned thing. But, in theory, the Electoral College could vote for one party’s Presidential candidate and another party’s Vice Presidential candidate perfectly lawfully. In addition, a perfectly tied Presidential election, where each ticket’s integrity holds firm in the Electoral College, could cause the House to choose a different party’s candidate for President than that of the Senate for Vice President. So, there are still loopholes.

In both the pre- and post-Twelfth Amendment systems, though, there is one glaring issue: We the People do not have a real hand in choosing the Vice President. Before the Amendment, many states still had their state legislatures appoint people to the Electoral College, and in the states where the people-at-large voted, they really did vote for the Electors and not for the candidates. Then, just as suffrage was becoming a greater issue, the parties began to run “tickets” anyway. Since the Amendment, there has been no debating; first, party conventions and then, in modern times, Presidential nominees themselves have chosen each ticket’s “lower half.” A vote for President nowadays by the people is a simultaneous “vote” for his or her running mate, like it or not.

My Point: Since the Vice President can become acting or actual President, We the People deserve more of a vote on him or her than a joint party ticket. While solutions range from the simple to the complex, and while partisan politics can throw wrenches in the process, the American experiment has grown to the point where the VP is the only office not in some way directly chosen by the people, and that has to change, if for no other reason than historical momentum. The adoption of the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the Constitution all expanded suffrage rights, leaving only one more major hole left to fill.

As a note, Gerald Ford was the only President who was never elected by the people in any manner for President or Vice President, ticket or no ticket.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

Vote on possible solutions to this problem here.

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

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.

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”.

Link’s GOP opponent is Keith Gray, who issued a statement calling for Link to be taken off of November’s ballot. Gray even has a plan to address campaign corruption (quite the novelty in Illinois, btw):

• Candidates for public office sign all documentation filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections in order to be accountable for business conducted by the candidate’s campaign;
• Campaign organizations file quarterly finance reports with the Illinois State Board of Elections, requiring all transaction amounts to be fully disclosed (currently only semi-annual finance reports are required and transactions under $150 are not itemized); and
• Increase civil penalties for those who violate campaign ethics laws.

Disclaimer: As of now, Terry Link has not been accused of engaging in this fake-signatures-for-cash scheme. But, for him to knowingly hire people who consistently have no income, pay them by the page, and then not verify the legitimacy of their work is enough to accuse him of incompetence in my book.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

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

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.

Currently, the Dems are picking and choosing in which counties they will push this law. Of course, they are targeting the campus areas, trying to get the aforementioned students to vote early. Emphasis mine:

The voting window, so far, is only being implemented in some counties — typically, urban areas or those with college campuses — leading Republicans to cry foul.

“The prospect of someone coming in with no ID and registering and voting is contrary to every sort of protection that legislators and lawmakers have built into this system for decades,” said Kevin DeWine, a Republican lawmaker who is poised to take over the state party after the election. “The processes and the law and the systems in our 88 counties are not equipped to handle same-day registration.”

I can attest to such problems with Ohio’s election system, as I am a recent Ohio State alumnus who voted in Ohio, on Election Day itself. Moreover, when I moved to Illinois, I registered to vote with my new address, but received a mailing from Ohio several months later asking me if I was still going to be a resident of Columbus in time for the 2008 primaries. If I had said yes, then I could have voted in person in Illinois and by absentee in Ohio. That’s not good- the system in Ohio is bad, and the Dems are trying to take advantage to make it even worse (but to their benefit):

The move is likely to bring Obama to Ohio for nonstop campaigning that week. Also, television ads are expected to be in heavy play as both campaigns try to take advantage of the electoral oddity.

Ohioans have to stand up. First, help fight the way in which the Dems are unfairly implementing the law by spreading the word; this will either force the law to fairly take effect state-wide or it will aid in striking it down completely. Second, if the law holds, whether for a few counties or the whole state, GET OUT THE VOTE! Don’t let the Dems get away with a new kind of gerrymandering; wouldn’t it be great if the whole thing benefits McCain in the end?

The article notes that the state GOP might file suit over this, but who knows if things will be done in time. It’s up to us!!

The Ohio Secretary of State:
Jennifer Brunner
General Agency Phone Number: 877-767-6446 (SOS-OHIO) or local 614-466-2655

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

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.

But unlike the Spanish war, it is not likely that Russia will declare war on us over such statements, so the question becomes one of where President Bush is looking to go from here. McKinley effectively goaded the Spanish into declaring war in order to both vindicate his anti-war stance and make the U.S. look like the defenders and not the attackers; perhaps Bush also wants to avoid having the US take the Bad Guy role once again. But there is one big difference between now and 1898: a serious state of war with Russia would be near cause for World War III instead of just a sequence of amphibious naval battles between two belligerents as was with Spain. Therefore, it is important that Bush be careful, even in taking steps to defend an ally, because who knows- Russia might just take the Spanish route and let all hell break loose, this time being much worse.

My Point: If we stay on this course of hard-line demands regarding an oppressive force that is smothering an ally of ours, then we are risking war with a nuclear power. This would hardly be “splendid”, nor would it be “little”. But, we have an ally in Georgia whom we have claimed we will defend, and we have interests to defend in democratizing countries in the surrounding region. Therefore, if we must go to war with Russia over this, then Bush’s current scheme is not without good historical backing: start with demands upon Russia to evacuate the area, and then authorize just enough American support to help the Georgians when Russia refuses to acquiesce; this will either bait the Russians into giving us an excuse for further self-helping action or it will force them to back down altogether. It worked in the Spanish-American War; it might just work here.

For a war that we didn’t originally want to have, America got some nice spoils in 1898. I don’t think that we can expect the same result in 2008, and in fact, I would be concerned about the safety of Alaskans. But if something must be done about Georgia, there is a successful precedent, and the President is, for now, following it.

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

Cross-posted at Commodore Perry.