Doug's Sounding Board » politics

Tipping the swing states

Douglas — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:00:19 +0000

I was just noticing that several of the close states, according to electoral-vote.com, have very short legal residency requirements for being elligible to vote. Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington all require 30 days to be allowed to vote. Arizona can be thrown in too since it’s fairly close and only requires 29 days.

I’m not moving anywhere, it’s just an observation.

Another Palin theory

Douglas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:19:17 +0000

From everything I’ve read about her she would fit in perfectly with the Bush administration so I think the party insiders forced Palin on McCain. That way when McCain dies in office she’s in charge and the party insiders get their control back.

Catching up on books – Politics and History

Douglas — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:18:25 +0000

Political Numeracy by Michael Meyerson is an attempt to show the mathmatical underpinnings in the Constitution. A few of the examples hold true but most of them end up being things like illustrations of mathmatical principles in court decisions or other laws. That can still be interesting and most of the time it is, but it isn’t what the book really claims to be.

With Godâ€™s Politics – Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesnâ€™t Get It by Jim Wallis I was hoping would clarify where religion falls in politics and it does that. It discusses how the right has been allowed to define religious issues to the very narrow scope of abortion and gay marriage while the left has tried to steer clear of any mention of god. The book then goes on to define many other things which are religious issues, like poverty and war, and advocates that the people who believe in that need to get involved and take back the religious discussions to turn it to those “liberal” issues. I agree that it needs to be turned away from what the right has defined as religious issues and I think some of that is happening in this current election cycle. I did have some trouble reading the book because it is so heavily focused on getting Christians involved in politics on the left side. It definitely wasn’t written with the non-Christian in mind and as a result it at times feels alienating and occasional references to Jews and Muslims don’t really help.

The Presidents: Every Leader from Washington to Bush edited by Michael Beschloss is a set of short biographies of every president we’ve so far had in this country. It even includes up to aroudn the 9-11 time frame on Bush so that one is more of a wait and see what he does and we know how that turned out. Reading history fro the perspective of the presidents is definitely different in some cases. Instead of covering what did happen it also can cover the issues and conflicts that president faced. I did find it interesting that even including recent elections the mudslinging of presidential elections hasn’t reached the heights it did in the 1800s.

Before reading Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick I can pretty safely say that all I knew about the pilgrims is that they came over on the Mayflower to avoid religious persecution and the indians helped them survive. In reality the history is full of peril and war and political intrigue! The compromises they had to make with their faith to survive, the changing relationship with the indians over the years, the relationship with other colonies established after Plymouth. Also in reading you start to get in impression of the start of the American character. Many thanks to Cathi for lending it to me for over a year before I got to it.

A different primary

Douglas — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:41:51 +0000

Yesterday a different contest popped into my head, one between Brocolli Obama and Celery Clinton. I was surprised to find no reference to it on the internets.

The Presidents edited by Michael Beschloss

Douglas — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:00:53 +0000

I just finished reading this collection of small presidential biographies and seeing the changes over time in this was is very interesting. The styles of campaigning changing from you announcing your candidacy and the party campaigning for the candidate compared to today where the candidate has a lot of work cut out for them. The creation of party controlled newspapers which set the stage for things like Fox News. The ebb and flow of graft and corruption (this administration has definitely been flow).

Another thing I noticed was that most presidents had some legal profession background before becoming president. Of the 42 presidents, 25 have had a background in law while 17 haven’t. Of those, 11 of the non-lawyerly background were in the 20th century. Certainly both groups have their ups and downs, but the ones with the law background tend to have a bigger impact during their presidency (for better or worse).

Presidents without a law background:

George Washington – He was primarily a planter though he certainly knew how to run things.
James Madison – Life-long politician
William Henry Harrison – Soldier
Zachary Taylor – Soldier and farmer
Andrew Johnson – Tailor
Ulysses S Grant – Soldier, farmer, real estate agent, leather store clerk
James A Garfield – Schoolteacher, college professor, preacher, canal worker, soldier, president of Hiram College
Theodore Roosevelt – Writer, historian
Warren G Harding – Newspaper editor
Herbert Hoover – Miner, engineer
Harry S Truman – Timekeeper for railroad construction, bank clerk, farmer, haberdasher
Dwight D Eisenhower – Soldier, president of Colombia University
Â John F Kennedy – Writer
Lyndon B Johnson – Teacher
Jimmy Carter – Farmer, businessman
Ronald Reagan – Broadcaster, film actor
George Bush – Founder of Zapata Oil and Zapata Off-shore Drilling
George W Bush – Businessman

The debates

Douglas — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:13:33 +0000

Republican:

Anderson Cooper kept things rolling for the most part and for the first half it was all very polite between the candidates. McCain and Romney were givent he most time to talk and Ron Paul was cut off several times after one sentence. Â After awhile Huckabee reminded the moderator and questioners that the other end of the table would like some questions too and then he and Paul did get more chances to speak which is good because McCain was starting to antagonize Romney and that was getting old fast. I think my favorite part was Ron Paul (you prety much always have to put the whole name) questioning why McCain and Romney were quibbling over something said back in April 2007 when the real issue is that we’re there at all based on faulty evidence and cause. I still think if McCain wins the nomination that Huckabee will end up as his vice presidential running mate.

Democrats:

I was thinking/hoping that Edwards was goign to stay in the race at least through super Tuesday. He didn’t just end his campaign though, he suspended it. That means he retains control of all his delegates and if it’s close you’ll still see him come into play at the end. He might have enough to bring his issues to the table at the Democratic National Convention anyway.

The message of the debate was that no matter which one you choose it’ll be better than the republicans. They also both mentioned that they only differ in a few ways and agree in most things on policy. They both presented themselves well with their similarities and differences, and stopped Wolf Blitzer when he tried to stir up trouble. I still feel positive about Obama but now I also feel more positive about Clinton, and I’m thinking that I don’t want to see Wolf Blitzer moderate any more debates.

Finally, one more year

Douglas — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:30:56 +0000

It seems like an eternity in coming but there’s only one more year to the Bush administration!

Dream from last night

Douglas — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:27:11 +0000

Nicole ended up talking to Kevin Smith and somehow ended up communicating that we were frustrated that we couldn’t talk directly to the presidential candidates. So he lent us his RV so we could drive around to the various campaign events, and having Kevin Smith’s RV would indicate to those in charge that we were allowed to talk to the candidates. It was a lot of fun; if only it were that simple.

Some campaign thoughts

Douglas — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:58:01 +0000

On the Democrat side, Clinton , as the front runner, controlled the discourse. ‘Most electable’ and ‘not George Bush’ seemed to be the biggest messages, at least the ones that I received. I think the Clinton campaign must have been coasting after being ahead for so long (one of the dangers of everyone starting so early I suppose) because Obama’s campaign was able to turn the discourse to one they controlled and make it about change. Unless Clinton’s campaign can take back control it’s going to be a long and tough struggle for the nomination and to some extent there is success there with redirecting the change message by saying that it requires experience to make change. The most interesting part of the change to ‘Change’ is that it sucked in the Republicans too, as seen in the New Hampshire debates and since then, which I think gives a glimpse of how Obama would do in the general election.

Why is Hillary Clinton so often referred to as Hillary rather than Clinton or Hillary Clinton? It seems disrespectful to me and it’s not just in the media, but in everyday life. Was it started by Fox News as a disrespectful address? I doubt that she would be referred to as President Hillary or just plain Hillary if she is elected (except maybe by Fox News). Is it done by her campaign to appear more approachable? I think that’s only part of it or maybe an attempt to take back her first name; I think The Hillary I KnowÂ is an attempt at that. Anyone?

After seeing Huckabee’s most recent appearance on the Colbert Report, where he again asked Colbert to be his running mate, and seeing his Chuck Norris video, I think Huckabee probably has the best sense of humor out of all the candidates. On the Colbert Report there were some jokes about Huckabee not believing in evolution and since people who do’t believe in evolution tend to be very serious on the subject and not prone to jokes I decided to read more about it. It’s true that he doesn’t believe in evolution but he doesn’t have a problem with it being taught in public schools and doesn’t expect creationism to be taught there since that’s the job of the parents, also that students should determine for themselves what they believe. I’m disappointed that any potential leader wouldn’t be going along with accepted science, but I am relieved that he’s not for forcing his views on everyone else. I’m still thinking that Huckabee will end up as a Vice Presidential running mate for McCain.

A candidate I would have liked to have in the race

Douglas — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:30:56 +0000

Were she not in stage 4 of her cancer I would have liked to have Elizabeth Edwards in the presidential race. I like what she says in her speeches, she’s a little more liberal, and she seems like a strong and forthright person.