We have a long history of vote counting corruption in American elections. We’re hardly the only ones. Every place that holds elections shares our history. For as long as there have been elections, there have been fixed ones. And the gold standard for stealing an election? Vote fraud. Vote switching; stuffing the ballot box; throwing away votes without counting them.
Supposedly, it was Comrade Joseph Stalin who said:
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
That aphorism’s authorship may be in question, but whether or not it was Stalin, or somebody else, the truth of it is both certain and certainly accepted. Another example is the quote of an as yet unknown and uncredited winning candidate who is said to have told his losing competitor:
“You won the vote, but I won the count.”
We’ve had our problems especially with Presidential elections. The most famous, or infamous considering the notoriety of the corruption, are the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000 and 2004. It does not speak well for the fundamental honesty of the electoral process if a country with only 43 Presidents has had a-half dozen questionable Presidential elections. A margin of error that high - 14% - seems unacceptable for a serious democracy.
Naturally, many of us remember best 2000 and 2004. Some of us recall vividly the massive numbers of “Chicago cemetery votes” that mysteriously appeared about two o’clock in the morning on Election Night 1960. It was those “votes” that made John F. Kennedy President, not Richard Nixon. For us, who do remember JFK’s victory, now almost a half-century ago, Florida 2000 was no surprise. Isn’t it interesting that, with that tainted election, George W. Bush joined another son of a former President, John Quincy Adams, each equaling their father via a questionable election. And, while Ohio 2004 was indeed an outrage, it too was to be expected when viewed through the looking glass of American electoral history. Wouldn’t Chicago’s Mayor Daley or New York’s Carmine DeSapio have been proud of Ohio’s Republicans in 2004?
After any election, how do we know who won? In every election, somebody counts the vote, and some media outlet reports it to you and me – as fact. Have you ever seen a TV announcer report a vote total, in any election, and then say something along the lines of:
“We need to be careful about accepting these vote counts because they may be subject to corruption, machine error, or even simple incompetence.”
Of course you haven’t, and you never will. When you watch your TV screen and you see, for example:
“NBC is calling the state of Florida for George W. Bush.”
Have you wondered why? Have you asked yourself, based on what? Has it occurred to you that neither NBC, nor any media company, has actually counted a single ballot? Have you ever pondered the added question:
“Who is telling them that this is the accurate vote count?”
If we take a moment to listen, Stalin tells how elections are stolen. The vote count is a fake. It’s a lie. So, the question, in an American Presidential election, must be:
“Who exactly is counting the vote?”
The answer is different in every state, yet the key to that answer is the same everywhere. Who is the Governor of the state – a Democrat or a Republican? It is the Governor who either appoints or oversees the Secretary of State, and it is the Office of the Secretary of State that is responsible for counting the votes.
Simply put – the key to stealing an election is the party affiliation of the state’s Governor.
Many Democrats believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry won their elections, but each was denied the Presidency because a key state had its vote “counted” corruptly in favor of the Republican. And many who think that, fear this may happen again in 2008 – they are afraid Barack Obama may “win the vote” but “lose the count.” The Governors of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were both Republicans. The Secretary of State in both states was a Republican – and each also happened to serve as the state Chairman of the George W. Bush campaign. It was these same Secretaries of State who supervised the vote counting. Yes, the head of the BUSH FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE counted the votes in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Bush wins! Bush wins! Wow, what a surprise.
Can this happen – again - in 2008?
No, it can’t!
Read the very next papadablogger for the details that will show you that the Republican Party no longer has the capacity to steal the Presidency in 2008.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
OXYMORON, HYPERBOLE, TROPE OR JUST A LIE?
You’ve heard it before.
No lead is safe in Wrigley Field. Or in Fenway Park; at the Indianapolis Speedway; sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas; or in an American Presidential election.
Where have you heard this? On television, of course. Maybe on radio, too. Somewhere, sometime, some broadcaster has told you, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” No lead is safe in Wrigley Field… because, when the score is 8-0 after six innings, a lot of viewers will turn to something else if they are not being urgently reminded, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” The announcers don’t really believe the team ahead 8-0 is going to lose. What they do believe is the TV station’s ratings will suffer if the audience goes elsewhere and it’s their job to keep those viewers tuned in. After all, what about the sponsors who’ve bought time in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings? “Hey, folks, we’ll be right back, after these messages. And don’t forget: No lead is safe in this stadium!”
In the broadcasting of political campaigns, the same principle applies: keep the audience tuned in! And what is the time honored favorite device used by TV producers to accomplish this “prime objective?” The Four C’s: Controversy. Conflict. Crisis. Chaos. These are the erotic figments of a TV producer’s wet dream.
It is the nature of media coverage to start with the assumption that “their perspective” automatically becomes “your perspective.” It is essential to their presentation that the viewer believe what they see and hear – and believe it to be the truth.
The real truth is, there is no such thing as broadcast journalism. That term is every bit as much an oxymoron as the phony “catastrophe titles” routinely used by all television networks as labels for just about any story they televise. As with all oxymoron’s, broadcast journalism, expert commentator, noted observer, respected historian, elder statesman and all the other nonsensical titles given to the same old, endless line of TV Talking Heads, it's self-contradictory. Some might go so far as to say the coverage of politics on TV amounts to hyperbole and trope. Whoever did say that might be right, except it’s really much worse. Broadcast journalism, including the so-called serious coverage of this Presidential election, is actually an outright lie. You think that’s too strong, too harsh a judgment?
Have lies become so ordinary in our daily public discourse that we now overlook them, excuse them, pretend they are not what they are, accept them as “acceptable?” What exactly is a lie?
LIE: “A false statement deliberately presented as the truth.”
Think hard about that. The key words are; “…deliberately presented…” Well, what do you know? Isn’t that the very essence of broadcasting, of television, of radio? Of course it is. Broadcast journalism, including the commentary that is the blood and guts of it, is just that… it’s “deliberately presented.” It doesn’t happen by itself. It’s all planned, setup, written out, even rehearsed. You don’t think they just turn on the camera and start talking, do you?
So, let’s look again at the upcoming election and ask the following question:
“What if this election is not close; what if the outcome seems certain; will anyone on TV ever say that?”
Looking back should give us some insight on this. What happened on TV during the primaries?
By now, any rational observer must conclude that after Barack Obama ran off a dozen or more victories in a row – most of them in states like Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota and other places he was never given a chance to win – after that string of impressive wins, it was practically impossible for Hillary Clinton to come back and win enough delegates to capture the nomination. It never mattered how well she might do in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia… or any other state yet to vote. The rules of the Democratic Party were such that the manner of delegate selection dictated that Obama was the obvious victor way back in February and March. Yet, for 5 months – nearly a half-year of TV time – the broadcast journalists kept up the “Battle Between Hillary And Obama.” The “new threat” of a Hillary Clinton comeback was a nightly affair on all the TV channels devoted to covering the election. For five months, Hillary’s already moribund hopes, her dead-in-the-water campaign, was reported as both alive and well, together with millions of dollars in TV product advertising on MSNBC, CNN and FOX NEWS. They “deliberately presented” coverage of a campaign that was actually already decided, as if it was not. Well, of course they did – they are commercial television networks carrying millions and millions of dollars in product advertising. They have programming needs everyday, every week, every month. It never stops – not for them. “And remember, folks, no lead is safe in this election!”
The Democratic Primary was treated like a Cub’s baseball game in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” That was the unremitting refrain from TV. Was it an oxymoron? An example of hyperbole? A trope? Well, maybe it was all those – but, most of all, it was a lie. It was something false, deliberately presented as the truth.
Watch out! The same thing is happening now. There are still eight weeks to go – “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” Except it is. It’s already over. Here’s what you won’t hear on TV because any Talking Head dumb enough to say it won’t be seen again anytime soon: John McCain has as much chance to win this election as Hillary Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination.
No lead is safe in Wrigley Field. Or in Fenway Park; at the Indianapolis Speedway; sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas; or in an American Presidential election.
Where have you heard this? On television, of course. Maybe on radio, too. Somewhere, sometime, some broadcaster has told you, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” No lead is safe in Wrigley Field… because, when the score is 8-0 after six innings, a lot of viewers will turn to something else if they are not being urgently reminded, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” The announcers don’t really believe the team ahead 8-0 is going to lose. What they do believe is the TV station’s ratings will suffer if the audience goes elsewhere and it’s their job to keep those viewers tuned in. After all, what about the sponsors who’ve bought time in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings? “Hey, folks, we’ll be right back, after these messages. And don’t forget: No lead is safe in this stadium!”
In the broadcasting of political campaigns, the same principle applies: keep the audience tuned in! And what is the time honored favorite device used by TV producers to accomplish this “prime objective?” The Four C’s: Controversy. Conflict. Crisis. Chaos. These are the erotic figments of a TV producer’s wet dream.
It is the nature of media coverage to start with the assumption that “their perspective” automatically becomes “your perspective.” It is essential to their presentation that the viewer believe what they see and hear – and believe it to be the truth.
The real truth is, there is no such thing as broadcast journalism. That term is every bit as much an oxymoron as the phony “catastrophe titles” routinely used by all television networks as labels for just about any story they televise. As with all oxymoron’s, broadcast journalism, expert commentator, noted observer, respected historian, elder statesman and all the other nonsensical titles given to the same old, endless line of TV Talking Heads, it's self-contradictory. Some might go so far as to say the coverage of politics on TV amounts to hyperbole and trope. Whoever did say that might be right, except it’s really much worse. Broadcast journalism, including the so-called serious coverage of this Presidential election, is actually an outright lie. You think that’s too strong, too harsh a judgment?
Have lies become so ordinary in our daily public discourse that we now overlook them, excuse them, pretend they are not what they are, accept them as “acceptable?” What exactly is a lie?
LIE: “A false statement deliberately presented as the truth.”
Think hard about that. The key words are; “…deliberately presented…” Well, what do you know? Isn’t that the very essence of broadcasting, of television, of radio? Of course it is. Broadcast journalism, including the commentary that is the blood and guts of it, is just that… it’s “deliberately presented.” It doesn’t happen by itself. It’s all planned, setup, written out, even rehearsed. You don’t think they just turn on the camera and start talking, do you?
So, let’s look again at the upcoming election and ask the following question:
“What if this election is not close; what if the outcome seems certain; will anyone on TV ever say that?”
Looking back should give us some insight on this. What happened on TV during the primaries?
By now, any rational observer must conclude that after Barack Obama ran off a dozen or more victories in a row – most of them in states like Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota and other places he was never given a chance to win – after that string of impressive wins, it was practically impossible for Hillary Clinton to come back and win enough delegates to capture the nomination. It never mattered how well she might do in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia… or any other state yet to vote. The rules of the Democratic Party were such that the manner of delegate selection dictated that Obama was the obvious victor way back in February and March. Yet, for 5 months – nearly a half-year of TV time – the broadcast journalists kept up the “Battle Between Hillary And Obama.” The “new threat” of a Hillary Clinton comeback was a nightly affair on all the TV channels devoted to covering the election. For five months, Hillary’s already moribund hopes, her dead-in-the-water campaign, was reported as both alive and well, together with millions of dollars in TV product advertising on MSNBC, CNN and FOX NEWS. They “deliberately presented” coverage of a campaign that was actually already decided, as if it was not. Well, of course they did – they are commercial television networks carrying millions and millions of dollars in product advertising. They have programming needs everyday, every week, every month. It never stops – not for them. “And remember, folks, no lead is safe in this election!”
The Democratic Primary was treated like a Cub’s baseball game in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” That was the unremitting refrain from TV. Was it an oxymoron? An example of hyperbole? A trope? Well, maybe it was all those – but, most of all, it was a lie. It was something false, deliberately presented as the truth.
Watch out! The same thing is happening now. There are still eight weeks to go – “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” Except it is. It’s already over. Here’s what you won’t hear on TV because any Talking Head dumb enough to say it won’t be seen again anytime soon: John McCain has as much chance to win this election as Hillary Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TEST?"
What’s the deal with “The Commander-In-Chief Test?” What test are they talking about? And how many of our War Presidents passed it?
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
"HILLARY'S WOMEN" IS 2008 ANOTHER 1968?
If “Hillary’s Women” are the cause of John McCain becoming president, they will have to live with the shame and guilt when McCain’s appointees to the Supreme Court – at least 3 staunch conservatives who will rule for decades to come - overturn Roe v Wade and young women suffer – which is to say, die - as they will. “Hillary’s Women” will share responsibility for those deaths as well as the continued killing in Iraq, and wherever is next for a new McCain War. If “Hillary’s Women” are ready and willing to live with that – and all the other consequences that will arise from another Republican administration – then they deserve every ounce of the scorn and disrespect they seem so determined to earn.
If you believe the TV talking heads – and why wouldn’t you? – there may be millions of Hillary Clinton supporters who are so… so… pissed, they’re not going to vote for the Democratic Party nominee in the upcoming election. Some have even said they will vote for the Republican, Senator John McCain.
Remind you of anyone? If you’re as old as Papa, visions of 1968 are sweeping past your eyes… protests and demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention; demands for “Justice!” confrontation with authorities; and a steadfast, dead-on, absolute refusal to vote for the party nominee, this time if it isn’t Hillary – and it won’t be! That’s exactly what happened in 1968. Many of the “best and the brightest,” the generation come of age in the 60s, they (we!) never got behind the candidacy of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey because HHH would not back off his support of Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Minus his rejection of the war, they (we!) sat on our hands on Election Day. We didn’t show up. We didn’t turn out. We didn’t vote for Humphrey. Showed him, didn’t we!
Richard M. Nixon, the disgraced former Vice President, loser to JFK in 1960, loser again in 1962 in his bid to become California’s Governor… somehow this guy snatched his party’s nomination. And, believe it or not, he won the Presidency in 1968, beating Hubert Humphrey by the thinnest of margins, seven-tenths of one percent. How did he manage that? He won all 6 of the key battleground states in 1968. Nixon triumphed in Missouri by 1.13%. He won in New Jersey by 2.1%, and in Ohio by 2.2%. He won the state of Illinois – where he had claimed the 1960 election was stolen from him – by 2.9%. Nixon was victorious in California (where earlier he had been defeated for Governor) by 3.0%, and in Wisconsin, Nixon won by 3.6%.
In these 6 key states, Nixon won them all, by a total of 593,000 votes. He won because Democratic voters, angry with Hubert Humphrey – pissed just like Hillary’s voters are today – stayed home. Some maybe were so angry they actually voted for Nixon. Need you be reminded – Richard Nixon served two terms (well, almost), resigning in disgrace in August, 1974.
In 1976, when Jimmy Carter, an unknown Governor of a small state in the South, a man with no national political credentials and no experience outside Georgia, a state with a “weak Governor” system, a man hardly "Ready On Day One” ran for President as a Democrat, Hubert Humphrey was forgotten; all Democrats felt comfortable voting for their party’s nominee. Carter won, carrying 3 of the 6 key states Nixon won in 1968: California, Illinois and New Jersey. Even while Gerald Ford carried Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio – the other 3 Nixon states – Jimmy Carter won the popular vote for all 6 states combined by more than 180,000 votes. That was a difference of more than 773,000 votes for Carter that Humphrey did not get – from the same voters! - 8 years earlier. Those 61 Electoral Votes, garnered by Carter in these battleground states meant the difference in the election’s outcome. Carter won in the Electoral College by only 57 votes. Gerald Ford was not elected to his own full term. Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States. Poor Hubert.
This time around, are we in for “Poor Hillary?” Once again some of the most intelligent, well educated, thinking Americans – the vast majority of them smart, successful women – are poised to screw things up just like an earlier generation of Democrats did. If they follow their politically suicidal tendencies, they must live with the responsibility for the consequences just as those of us who refused to vote for Humphrey in ’68 must face our role in making Richard Nixon president.
Are “Hillary’s Women” ready to wear the scarlet H?
If you believe the TV talking heads – and why wouldn’t you? – there may be millions of Hillary Clinton supporters who are so… so… pissed, they’re not going to vote for the Democratic Party nominee in the upcoming election. Some have even said they will vote for the Republican, Senator John McCain.
Remind you of anyone? If you’re as old as Papa, visions of 1968 are sweeping past your eyes… protests and demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention; demands for “Justice!” confrontation with authorities; and a steadfast, dead-on, absolute refusal to vote for the party nominee, this time if it isn’t Hillary – and it won’t be! That’s exactly what happened in 1968. Many of the “best and the brightest,” the generation come of age in the 60s, they (we!) never got behind the candidacy of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey because HHH would not back off his support of Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Minus his rejection of the war, they (we!) sat on our hands on Election Day. We didn’t show up. We didn’t turn out. We didn’t vote for Humphrey. Showed him, didn’t we!
Richard M. Nixon, the disgraced former Vice President, loser to JFK in 1960, loser again in 1962 in his bid to become California’s Governor… somehow this guy snatched his party’s nomination. And, believe it or not, he won the Presidency in 1968, beating Hubert Humphrey by the thinnest of margins, seven-tenths of one percent. How did he manage that? He won all 6 of the key battleground states in 1968. Nixon triumphed in Missouri by 1.13%. He won in New Jersey by 2.1%, and in Ohio by 2.2%. He won the state of Illinois – where he had claimed the 1960 election was stolen from him – by 2.9%. Nixon was victorious in California (where earlier he had been defeated for Governor) by 3.0%, and in Wisconsin, Nixon won by 3.6%.
In these 6 key states, Nixon won them all, by a total of 593,000 votes. He won because Democratic voters, angry with Hubert Humphrey – pissed just like Hillary’s voters are today – stayed home. Some maybe were so angry they actually voted for Nixon. Need you be reminded – Richard Nixon served two terms (well, almost), resigning in disgrace in August, 1974.
In 1976, when Jimmy Carter, an unknown Governor of a small state in the South, a man with no national political credentials and no experience outside Georgia, a state with a “weak Governor” system, a man hardly "Ready On Day One” ran for President as a Democrat, Hubert Humphrey was forgotten; all Democrats felt comfortable voting for their party’s nominee. Carter won, carrying 3 of the 6 key states Nixon won in 1968: California, Illinois and New Jersey. Even while Gerald Ford carried Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio – the other 3 Nixon states – Jimmy Carter won the popular vote for all 6 states combined by more than 180,000 votes. That was a difference of more than 773,000 votes for Carter that Humphrey did not get – from the same voters! - 8 years earlier. Those 61 Electoral Votes, garnered by Carter in these battleground states meant the difference in the election’s outcome. Carter won in the Electoral College by only 57 votes. Gerald Ford was not elected to his own full term. Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States. Poor Hubert.
This time around, are we in for “Poor Hillary?” Once again some of the most intelligent, well educated, thinking Americans – the vast majority of them smart, successful women – are poised to screw things up just like an earlier generation of Democrats did. If they follow their politically suicidal tendencies, they must live with the responsibility for the consequences just as those of us who refused to vote for Humphrey in ’68 must face our role in making Richard Nixon president.
Are “Hillary’s Women” ready to wear the scarlet H?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
PAPA NAILED THE DEMS VP PICK - LAST MONTH!
Papa is not one to brag, but - as the "Splendid Splinter," Ted Williams, once said: "If it's true, it ain't bragging!" More than a month ago, on July 16th to be exact, what did Papa say about who would be Barack Obama's pick to be his running mate? Well, in case you've forgotten... take a look:
PAPADABLOGGER, JULY 16, 2008
THE HISTORICAL ODDS HEAVILY FAVOR A US SENATOR IN 2008 TO BE BARACK OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE... JOSEPH BIDEN FITS THE HISTORICAL MOLD PERFECTLY.
So... is Papa bragging, or what? Joe Biden not only fits the mold - he is the mold! And he's now the official choice to run as VP on a Democratic Party ticket headed by Obama headed.
Papa wants to remind his readers why he made this prediction. Here's what he wrote last month:
FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOOKED TO THE US SENATE FOR ITS VICE PRESIDENTS. AND IT HAS ESPECIALLY SOUGHT OUT WELL-KNOWN, POPULAR AND ACTIVE SENATORS, POLITICIANS WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES, MANY WITH PERSONAL HISTORIES OF SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY THEMSELVES. EXAMINE THE LIST: LYNDON JOHNSON, HUBERT HUMPHREY, WALTER MONDALE, LLOYD BENTSEN, AL GORE, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN AND JOHN EDWARDS - ALL NATIONAL FIGURES WITH PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS.
But, I hear you asking - what about the "experts," the pundits, the talking heads on TV? Aren't they the ones who really know what's happening? Don't these "pretty faces" have all the inside sources, the real skinny on Washington politics?
Again... here's Papa from July 16th:
THE CURRENT PUNDITS MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE PARTY'S INTEREST IN GOVERNORS AS POTENTIAL VP NOMINEES. THEY STRESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE GOVERNORS HAVE THAT LEGISLATORS LACK. AND THEY TALK ABOUT BRINGING "SWING STATES" INTO THE ELECTORAL FOLD. BUT THE HISTORY OF WHO ACTUALLY GETS NOMINATED DOESN'T JIBE WITH THAT ANALYSIS. IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOMINATED ONLY 5 GOVERNORS FOR VICE PRESIDENT: JOHN KERR OF INDIANA IN 1908, THOMAS MARSHALL, ALSO OF INDIANA IN 1912, FDR OF NEW YORK IN 1920, CHARLES BYRON OF NEBRASKA IN 1924 AND JOSEPH ROBINSON FROM ARKANSAS IN 1928. WELL, WHAT'S THAT MEAN? IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
For all those who were sure Obama would select Gov. Tim Kaine, please read that last line again.
IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
You can maake that 84 years now.
Obama/Biden '08! Papa is sitting pretty today.
PAPADABLOGGER, JULY 16, 2008
THE HISTORICAL ODDS HEAVILY FAVOR A US SENATOR IN 2008 TO BE BARACK OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE... JOSEPH BIDEN FITS THE HISTORICAL MOLD PERFECTLY.
So... is Papa bragging, or what? Joe Biden not only fits the mold - he is the mold! And he's now the official choice to run as VP on a Democratic Party ticket headed by Obama headed.
Papa wants to remind his readers why he made this prediction. Here's what he wrote last month:
FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOOKED TO THE US SENATE FOR ITS VICE PRESIDENTS. AND IT HAS ESPECIALLY SOUGHT OUT WELL-KNOWN, POPULAR AND ACTIVE SENATORS, POLITICIANS WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES, MANY WITH PERSONAL HISTORIES OF SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY THEMSELVES. EXAMINE THE LIST: LYNDON JOHNSON, HUBERT HUMPHREY, WALTER MONDALE, LLOYD BENTSEN, AL GORE, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN AND JOHN EDWARDS - ALL NATIONAL FIGURES WITH PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS.
But, I hear you asking - what about the "experts," the pundits, the talking heads on TV? Aren't they the ones who really know what's happening? Don't these "pretty faces" have all the inside sources, the real skinny on Washington politics?
Again... here's Papa from July 16th:
THE CURRENT PUNDITS MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE PARTY'S INTEREST IN GOVERNORS AS POTENTIAL VP NOMINEES. THEY STRESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE GOVERNORS HAVE THAT LEGISLATORS LACK. AND THEY TALK ABOUT BRINGING "SWING STATES" INTO THE ELECTORAL FOLD. BUT THE HISTORY OF WHO ACTUALLY GETS NOMINATED DOESN'T JIBE WITH THAT ANALYSIS. IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOMINATED ONLY 5 GOVERNORS FOR VICE PRESIDENT: JOHN KERR OF INDIANA IN 1908, THOMAS MARSHALL, ALSO OF INDIANA IN 1912, FDR OF NEW YORK IN 1920, CHARLES BYRON OF NEBRASKA IN 1924 AND JOSEPH ROBINSON FROM ARKANSAS IN 1928. WELL, WHAT'S THAT MEAN? IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
For all those who were sure Obama would select Gov. Tim Kaine, please read that last line again.
IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
You can maake that 84 years now.
Obama/Biden '08! Papa is sitting pretty today.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN: ON THE WAY OUT...
Hillary Clinton and her supporting cast, The Denver Group, aren’t the only ones who understand the rules. Republicans too know their party doesn’t really have a Presidential nominee – not yet anyway. It’s not official until the states are called, the votes cast and counted and the winner steps to the podium declaring: “I accept the nomination of my Party for the office of President of the United States of America.”
Those who continue to hold out hope that magic will somehow strike the Convention hall in Denver and Mrs. Clinton will – after everything! – still win the nomination away from Barack Obama… they need professional help. They are so far removed from political reality they may not be able to adjust even after the nominating process concludes, Obama has won and the Convention disbands. Who knows, those diehards may protest the Inauguration.
But there are others in America, far more realistic, fully savvy and perhaps far more motivated than any disgruntled Clinton supporters. They also know the rules and may begin working within them soon – if they haven’t already begun, in secret. Are they Democrats? No. They are Republicans. They are the sane ones, who see the McCain candidacy as potentially the most catastrophic political movement ever to ride the coattails of a major American political party. Not only is the McCain campaign doing everything wrong – yes, everything! – It is heading full-speed toward an electoral debacle which will not only end the GOP tenure in the White House, but may deliver a Democratic House and Senate that looks more like a FDR Congress than any Congress since the four-term Democrat.
There are Republicans who see Barack Obama, handsome, young, slim, smiling, self-confident, drawing overflow crowds wherever he goes – even 200,000 Germans! – while they painfully watch an old, pale, often confused John McCain struggle to get a small hall half-filled in what ought to be his conservative stronghold, white, working-class, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. If they won’t show up for him there, then where? Is McCain worried? He sure doesn’t look like he is.
Who are the worried Republicans? They are Republican powerhouses, the Grandees of American corporate culture and they cannot help but be scared by what they see. The 2008 Campaign must seem like a trailer for the latest Hollywood horror flick. “Be afraid! Be very afraid!” This fear only feeds on itself. Perhaps, that explains why Barack Obama raised more money in one day in June than John McCain raised in the entire month. The GOP fat cats are not only keeping their wallets closed; they’re sitting on them. Are you surprised? Does John McCain inspire you – does he inspire anyone – to take your own money and say, “Here, John, please take this. Go out and become President!”
What can save the Grand Old Party? The very rules Hillary Clinton counted on to save her, in vain. Both parties nominate – officially - at the Convention, not before. John McCain doesn’t become the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party until the first week in September. There’s a lot of time between now and then. The smart money in the Republican Party – and here, we’re talking about an amount of money you can’t begin to imagine – is on John McCain’s withdrawal from this race. Yes, that’s right. You heard me. The only sensible thing for the Republicans to do is nominate somebody who at least stands a chance of winning, and won’t bring down the party with him. That’s not John McCain.
How will this occur? What needs to happen? John McCain is no Tom Eagleton. There are no hidden secrets which, upon disclosure, will disqualify him. No, nothing like that. And you can be sure he won’t just… resign. Of course not.
What could happen to John McCain, between now and September 1st, that would be perfectly normal, absolutely acceptable to his supporters and all the American people and completely understandable? Watch for the signs of a “withdrawal for medical reasons.” The first such sign – “feeling under the weather,” one day, missing a campaign event, the cancellation of a trip here or a visit there, perhaps a long planned meeting that doesn’t come off. Watch for it. It could happen.
It’s the only thing left for the Republican Party – John McCain’s withdrawal and the nomination of a “competitive” candidate. Who could that be? The Republicans have many prospects, but it is unlikely to be someone who has already tried for the nomination this year. It won’t be somebody with a recent record of losing. The list of possibilities is longer than you think, at first. Keep watching.
Those who continue to hold out hope that magic will somehow strike the Convention hall in Denver and Mrs. Clinton will – after everything! – still win the nomination away from Barack Obama… they need professional help. They are so far removed from political reality they may not be able to adjust even after the nominating process concludes, Obama has won and the Convention disbands. Who knows, those diehards may protest the Inauguration.
But there are others in America, far more realistic, fully savvy and perhaps far more motivated than any disgruntled Clinton supporters. They also know the rules and may begin working within them soon – if they haven’t already begun, in secret. Are they Democrats? No. They are Republicans. They are the sane ones, who see the McCain candidacy as potentially the most catastrophic political movement ever to ride the coattails of a major American political party. Not only is the McCain campaign doing everything wrong – yes, everything! – It is heading full-speed toward an electoral debacle which will not only end the GOP tenure in the White House, but may deliver a Democratic House and Senate that looks more like a FDR Congress than any Congress since the four-term Democrat.
There are Republicans who see Barack Obama, handsome, young, slim, smiling, self-confident, drawing overflow crowds wherever he goes – even 200,000 Germans! – while they painfully watch an old, pale, often confused John McCain struggle to get a small hall half-filled in what ought to be his conservative stronghold, white, working-class, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. If they won’t show up for him there, then where? Is McCain worried? He sure doesn’t look like he is.
Who are the worried Republicans? They are Republican powerhouses, the Grandees of American corporate culture and they cannot help but be scared by what they see. The 2008 Campaign must seem like a trailer for the latest Hollywood horror flick. “Be afraid! Be very afraid!” This fear only feeds on itself. Perhaps, that explains why Barack Obama raised more money in one day in June than John McCain raised in the entire month. The GOP fat cats are not only keeping their wallets closed; they’re sitting on them. Are you surprised? Does John McCain inspire you – does he inspire anyone – to take your own money and say, “Here, John, please take this. Go out and become President!”
What can save the Grand Old Party? The very rules Hillary Clinton counted on to save her, in vain. Both parties nominate – officially - at the Convention, not before. John McCain doesn’t become the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party until the first week in September. There’s a lot of time between now and then. The smart money in the Republican Party – and here, we’re talking about an amount of money you can’t begin to imagine – is on John McCain’s withdrawal from this race. Yes, that’s right. You heard me. The only sensible thing for the Republicans to do is nominate somebody who at least stands a chance of winning, and won’t bring down the party with him. That’s not John McCain.
How will this occur? What needs to happen? John McCain is no Tom Eagleton. There are no hidden secrets which, upon disclosure, will disqualify him. No, nothing like that. And you can be sure he won’t just… resign. Of course not.
What could happen to John McCain, between now and September 1st, that would be perfectly normal, absolutely acceptable to his supporters and all the American people and completely understandable? Watch for the signs of a “withdrawal for medical reasons.” The first such sign – “feeling under the weather,” one day, missing a campaign event, the cancellation of a trip here or a visit there, perhaps a long planned meeting that doesn’t come off. Watch for it. It could happen.
It’s the only thing left for the Republican Party – John McCain’s withdrawal and the nomination of a “competitive” candidate. Who could that be? The Republicans have many prospects, but it is unlikely to be someone who has already tried for the nomination this year. It won’t be somebody with a recent record of losing. The list of possibilities is longer than you think, at first. Keep watching.
Friday, July 18, 2008
ZERO POSSIBILITY OF AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR ATTACK
Our government, together with a compliant, complicit media, presents us with the terrible vision of a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East – a vision of Israel literally up in smoke, obliterated by a mushroom cloud of Iranian origin. Of course, nobody wants to see that. But, is the only alternative a “preemptive strike” against Iran and its so-called WMD program facilities? Why do we accept these visions unquestioningly?
In fact, why doesn’t anyone ask: Is a nuclear attack upon Israel strategically feasible? Is there really a threat to the Jewish state from a Persian bomb?
The answers are: No and No.
The “war mongers” are at it full blast again. The Op-Ed page of The New York Times is just the latest to tell us how scared Israel is of an impending Iranian nuclear attack. Of course, Iran has no nuclear weapons and couldn’t have any – even if they tried as hard as they could – for many years to come. But that hardly seems worth mentioning. Just as we tremble at the thought of the bogy-man in the closet and the monsters under the bed, we are afraid of what we “think” about Iran without making the effort to actually think.
The President of the United States, and his party’s presumptive nominee to be the Next President, itch for a fight. Iran cannot be “allowed” to have nuclear weapons, they proclaim, speaking as if they have not only God’s ear, but His mouth too. The assumption goes unchallenged: the United States of America “allows” or “disallows” the possession of weapons by other countries. It’s our way, or the highway! Accordingly, it’s okay for Israel to have not only a nuclear weapon, but an entire nuclear arsenal – however, it’s not okay for Iran (or Iraq, remember them?) to even have “the knowledge” needed to make these weapons. President Bush says as much, although “the knowledge” is spread quite openly worldwide, available on the Internet, and not subject to the approval of any nation or any leader. The money and materials needed to build nuclear weapons may not be as easily accessible, but “the knowledge?” Have we forgotten: “you can’t put the toothpaste…”
No military planner would ever suggest that a nuclear strike against Israel could work. The strategic consequences would be disastrous. Any nuclear attack upon Israel is the same as a nuclear attack upon The West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and even Egypt. All you need to do is look at a map. The State of Israel is SMALLER THAN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY! Ask yourself: could New Jersey be hit by a military style fusillade of nuclear weapons and not have both New York City and Philadelphia severely damaged as well? Could Washington, D. C. avoid the fallout? Not to mention everything from, say Newark, New Jersey south to Wilmington, Delaware and on to Baltimore, Maryland? And how would Boston and the rest of New England fare under such an assault? How much of America’s East Coast would burn or sizzle in a toxic stew of radioactivity? Where would it end? Depends on how the wind blows.
Simply put, if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the successors in interest to The Persian Empire (no Arabs themselves, remember) would be responsible for killing most or many of the 2.6 million Palestinians on The West Bank and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza – all of them, Arabs, not Jews. This would be some 4 million dead, mostly children. The Palestinian population is the youngest in the world, their median age being 18.7 years-old on The West Bank and only 16.2 years-old in Gaza. Are the Iranians ready to incinerate millions of Arab children – a whole Muslim generation eliminated in an instant? Can any reasonable person believe that could be so?
Can Iran hit Israel without “collateral damage?” Tel Aviv is 9 miles from The West Bank. NINE MILES! Can your nuke blow up Minneapolis without destroying St. Paul?
How many of Jordan’s 5 million residents would perish in an Iranian attack on Israel? Go ahead, check your map. Jordan’s capital, Amman is closer to Jerusalem than Galveston is to Houston. Consider the 20 million people living in Syria especially the 6 million in Damascus. And wither Lebanon in such an extremity? What happens to the more than 3 million Lebanese, most of whom believe Iran to be their dearest friend and ally, their protector - and nearly a-third of whom are Christian? All this death and destruction, in the Arab world, from an Iranian attack against Israel. It’s not a pretty picture.
Yet we are told to fear the Iranian threat to Israel’s very existence. We are told that a nuclear Persia will mean the end of some 7 million plus Israelis. And we never ask: would Israel “go quietly?” We know the opposite is true. If Israel were attacked, they would strike back with the full force of their already practiced and powerful nuclear force, an “unspoken” arsenal estimated at between 200 and 500 nuclear bombs and warheads. Such retaliation would surely turn Iran and possibly most of the Middle East into little more than blazing ruins. Hundreds of millions would die. Oh, and as a side-effect, the world’s oil supplies would be “taken off-line,” more likely than not damaged beyond any reasonable hope of repair.
So, ask yourself, finally: Is Israel really threatened by or scared of Iran? And, just why are we – here in the United States of America – ginning up to go to war with the Persians? If “saving Israel” ain’t the real reason, what is? Hey, do you think oil might have something to do with it?
In fact, why doesn’t anyone ask: Is a nuclear attack upon Israel strategically feasible? Is there really a threat to the Jewish state from a Persian bomb?
The answers are: No and No.
The “war mongers” are at it full blast again. The Op-Ed page of The New York Times is just the latest to tell us how scared Israel is of an impending Iranian nuclear attack. Of course, Iran has no nuclear weapons and couldn’t have any – even if they tried as hard as they could – for many years to come. But that hardly seems worth mentioning. Just as we tremble at the thought of the bogy-man in the closet and the monsters under the bed, we are afraid of what we “think” about Iran without making the effort to actually think.
The President of the United States, and his party’s presumptive nominee to be the Next President, itch for a fight. Iran cannot be “allowed” to have nuclear weapons, they proclaim, speaking as if they have not only God’s ear, but His mouth too. The assumption goes unchallenged: the United States of America “allows” or “disallows” the possession of weapons by other countries. It’s our way, or the highway! Accordingly, it’s okay for Israel to have not only a nuclear weapon, but an entire nuclear arsenal – however, it’s not okay for Iran (or Iraq, remember them?) to even have “the knowledge” needed to make these weapons. President Bush says as much, although “the knowledge” is spread quite openly worldwide, available on the Internet, and not subject to the approval of any nation or any leader. The money and materials needed to build nuclear weapons may not be as easily accessible, but “the knowledge?” Have we forgotten: “you can’t put the toothpaste…”
No military planner would ever suggest that a nuclear strike against Israel could work. The strategic consequences would be disastrous. Any nuclear attack upon Israel is the same as a nuclear attack upon The West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and even Egypt. All you need to do is look at a map. The State of Israel is SMALLER THAN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY! Ask yourself: could New Jersey be hit by a military style fusillade of nuclear weapons and not have both New York City and Philadelphia severely damaged as well? Could Washington, D. C. avoid the fallout? Not to mention everything from, say Newark, New Jersey south to Wilmington, Delaware and on to Baltimore, Maryland? And how would Boston and the rest of New England fare under such an assault? How much of America’s East Coast would burn or sizzle in a toxic stew of radioactivity? Where would it end? Depends on how the wind blows.
Simply put, if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the successors in interest to The Persian Empire (no Arabs themselves, remember) would be responsible for killing most or many of the 2.6 million Palestinians on The West Bank and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza – all of them, Arabs, not Jews. This would be some 4 million dead, mostly children. The Palestinian population is the youngest in the world, their median age being 18.7 years-old on The West Bank and only 16.2 years-old in Gaza. Are the Iranians ready to incinerate millions of Arab children – a whole Muslim generation eliminated in an instant? Can any reasonable person believe that could be so?
Can Iran hit Israel without “collateral damage?” Tel Aviv is 9 miles from The West Bank. NINE MILES! Can your nuke blow up Minneapolis without destroying St. Paul?
How many of Jordan’s 5 million residents would perish in an Iranian attack on Israel? Go ahead, check your map. Jordan’s capital, Amman is closer to Jerusalem than Galveston is to Houston. Consider the 20 million people living in Syria especially the 6 million in Damascus. And wither Lebanon in such an extremity? What happens to the more than 3 million Lebanese, most of whom believe Iran to be their dearest friend and ally, their protector - and nearly a-third of whom are Christian? All this death and destruction, in the Arab world, from an Iranian attack against Israel. It’s not a pretty picture.
Yet we are told to fear the Iranian threat to Israel’s very existence. We are told that a nuclear Persia will mean the end of some 7 million plus Israelis. And we never ask: would Israel “go quietly?” We know the opposite is true. If Israel were attacked, they would strike back with the full force of their already practiced and powerful nuclear force, an “unspoken” arsenal estimated at between 200 and 500 nuclear bombs and warheads. Such retaliation would surely turn Iran and possibly most of the Middle East into little more than blazing ruins. Hundreds of millions would die. Oh, and as a side-effect, the world’s oil supplies would be “taken off-line,” more likely than not damaged beyond any reasonable hope of repair.
So, ask yourself, finally: Is Israel really threatened by or scared of Iran? And, just why are we – here in the United States of America – ginning up to go to war with the Persians? If “saving Israel” ain’t the real reason, what is? Hey, do you think oil might have something to do with it?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
WILL VP CHOICES FOLLOW HISTORY?
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have a discernable history when it comes to selecting their nominees for Vice President. If those histories hold up this time around, the most likely nominees will be Senator Joseph Biden or Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and former Representative Rob Portman for the GOP.
Look at the past Democratic nominees. First, they have nominated Senators for President in 7 of the last 12 elections, since 1960, and they are about to nominate their eighth Senator, Barack Obama in 2008. In eight of those elections, the Democratic ticket has included a Senator as Vice President. In fact, since 1960 – almost 50 years ago – Sargent Shriver, in 1972 and Geraldine Ferraro, in 1988 are the only Democratic Vice Presidential nominees who were not members of the US Senate. Shriver, of course, was the replacement for Senator Eagleton of Missouri who was poorly vetted in 1972 and had to drop out of the race when his history of psychiatric shock treatments came to public light. So, Shriver’s non-Senate credentials hardly count. The same can be said for Ms. Ferraro who was obviously and openly chosen because she was a woman. In 1988 it would have been slim pickings had the Democrats been looking for a VP nominee among female Senators.
For nearly 50 years the Democratic Party has looked to the US Senate for its Vice Presidents. And it has especially sought out well-known, popular and active Senators, politicians with their own constituencies, many with personal histories of seeking the Presidency themselves. Examine the list: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentson, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards – all national figures with Presidential ambitions.
The current pundits make a big deal of the party’s interest in Governors as potential VP nominees. They stress the administrative experience Governors have that other legislators lack. And they talk about bringing “swing states” into the Electoral fold. But the history of who actually gets nominated doesn’t jibe with that analysis. In the last 100 years, the Democrats have nominated only 5 Governors for Vice President: John Kerr of Indiana in 1908, Thomas Marshall, also of Indiana in 1912, FDR of New York in 1920, Charles Byron of Nebraska in 1924 and Joseph Robinson from Arkansas in 1928. Well, what’s that mean? It’s been 80 years – 80 years! – since the Democratic Party selected a state Governor to be its Vice Presidential nominee.
The historical odds heavily favor a US Senator in 2008 to be Barack Obama's running mate. If Hillary Clinton brings too much baggage to the table, Joseph Biden fits the historical mold perfectly.
The Republican Party has its own historical trends when it comes to choosing VP nominees. Among them is the “lesser known” quality of the nominee. Put simply, the GOP has a history picking Vice Presidents with slender resumes and little widespread, popular political support. In the last 100 years – since the election of 1908 – the closest the GOP has come to picking a household name for its VP spot was Bob Dole in 1976. And there are those who would say that isn’t very close at all. Earl Warren went on to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but – in 1948, before the TV age - he was a relatively unknown California Governor when Thomas Dewey chose him as his VP. Richard Nixon, was likewise a newcomer to national politics in 1952 when Ike was pretty much forced to swallow him on the ticket.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans give more lip service to Governors than actual votes. In the last 88 years – since 1920 – the GOP has nominated only 4 Governors as Vice President and no one since Spiro Agnew in 1972/1976. They did nominate Calvin Coolidge from Massachusetts in 1920, John Bricker of Ohio in 1944 plus the aforementioned Warren of California and Agnew from Maryland. Perhaps, Agnew’s unseemly end, buried beneath a pile of corruption, some so petty in nature it defies description, is partially responsible for the Republicans looking elsewhere away from the state houses in recent elections.
Unlike the Democrats, who haven’t nominated a member of the House of Representatives for Vice President since John Sparkman of Alabama in 1952 – 56 years ago! – the Republicans seem to like their Congressmen when looking to fill-out the Party’s national ticket. Since choosing Rep. William Miller of New York in 1964, the GOP has elevated George H. W. Bush of Texas, Jack Kemp of New York and Dick Cheney from Wyoming – all of whom served in the Congress – to be their VP nominee.
Those same historical odds that lean toward a Senator for the Democrats, pitch in the direction of the House for the Republican’s running mate, making former Ohio Congressman Rod Portman a likely choice for John McCain in 2008. Given the propensity the Republicans have shown for picking “lesser-lights,” there may someone else in the House, even less well known than Portman, who may soon be the VP choice.
Look at the past Democratic nominees. First, they have nominated Senators for President in 7 of the last 12 elections, since 1960, and they are about to nominate their eighth Senator, Barack Obama in 2008. In eight of those elections, the Democratic ticket has included a Senator as Vice President. In fact, since 1960 – almost 50 years ago – Sargent Shriver, in 1972 and Geraldine Ferraro, in 1988 are the only Democratic Vice Presidential nominees who were not members of the US Senate. Shriver, of course, was the replacement for Senator Eagleton of Missouri who was poorly vetted in 1972 and had to drop out of the race when his history of psychiatric shock treatments came to public light. So, Shriver’s non-Senate credentials hardly count. The same can be said for Ms. Ferraro who was obviously and openly chosen because she was a woman. In 1988 it would have been slim pickings had the Democrats been looking for a VP nominee among female Senators.
For nearly 50 years the Democratic Party has looked to the US Senate for its Vice Presidents. And it has especially sought out well-known, popular and active Senators, politicians with their own constituencies, many with personal histories of seeking the Presidency themselves. Examine the list: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentson, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards – all national figures with Presidential ambitions.
The current pundits make a big deal of the party’s interest in Governors as potential VP nominees. They stress the administrative experience Governors have that other legislators lack. And they talk about bringing “swing states” into the Electoral fold. But the history of who actually gets nominated doesn’t jibe with that analysis. In the last 100 years, the Democrats have nominated only 5 Governors for Vice President: John Kerr of Indiana in 1908, Thomas Marshall, also of Indiana in 1912, FDR of New York in 1920, Charles Byron of Nebraska in 1924 and Joseph Robinson from Arkansas in 1928. Well, what’s that mean? It’s been 80 years – 80 years! – since the Democratic Party selected a state Governor to be its Vice Presidential nominee.
The historical odds heavily favor a US Senator in 2008 to be Barack Obama's running mate. If Hillary Clinton brings too much baggage to the table, Joseph Biden fits the historical mold perfectly.
The Republican Party has its own historical trends when it comes to choosing VP nominees. Among them is the “lesser known” quality of the nominee. Put simply, the GOP has a history picking Vice Presidents with slender resumes and little widespread, popular political support. In the last 100 years – since the election of 1908 – the closest the GOP has come to picking a household name for its VP spot was Bob Dole in 1976. And there are those who would say that isn’t very close at all. Earl Warren went on to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but – in 1948, before the TV age - he was a relatively unknown California Governor when Thomas Dewey chose him as his VP. Richard Nixon, was likewise a newcomer to national politics in 1952 when Ike was pretty much forced to swallow him on the ticket.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans give more lip service to Governors than actual votes. In the last 88 years – since 1920 – the GOP has nominated only 4 Governors as Vice President and no one since Spiro Agnew in 1972/1976. They did nominate Calvin Coolidge from Massachusetts in 1920, John Bricker of Ohio in 1944 plus the aforementioned Warren of California and Agnew from Maryland. Perhaps, Agnew’s unseemly end, buried beneath a pile of corruption, some so petty in nature it defies description, is partially responsible for the Republicans looking elsewhere away from the state houses in recent elections.
Unlike the Democrats, who haven’t nominated a member of the House of Representatives for Vice President since John Sparkman of Alabama in 1952 – 56 years ago! – the Republicans seem to like their Congressmen when looking to fill-out the Party’s national ticket. Since choosing Rep. William Miller of New York in 1964, the GOP has elevated George H. W. Bush of Texas, Jack Kemp of New York and Dick Cheney from Wyoming – all of whom served in the Congress – to be their VP nominee.
Those same historical odds that lean toward a Senator for the Democrats, pitch in the direction of the House for the Republican’s running mate, making former Ohio Congressman Rod Portman a likely choice for John McCain in 2008. Given the propensity the Republicans have shown for picking “lesser-lights,” there may someone else in the House, even less well known than Portman, who may soon be the VP choice.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
THE 2008 ELECTION - PART TWO
Barack Obama will win a landslide victory in the Electoral College as the result of the votes cast in 50 states and the District of Columbia in November 2008. Our Electoral History says as much.
Despite the dual victories of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the 62 million votes he received in 2004 (the most ever, for any Presidential candidate), there were 19 states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 and then in 2004 voted for John Kerry. Since these states also voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s, clearly they are 19 solid Democratic states. There is no reason to believe they will not vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008. They will and they represent 248 votes in Electoral College. Obama begins needing only 22 more Electoral College votes to be the next President. These 19 states with their Electoral College votes are as follows:
California 55; New York 31; Illinois 21; Pennsylvania 21; Michigan 17; New Jersey 15; Mass. 12; Washington 11; Wisconsin 10; Minnesota 10; Maryland 10; Oregon 9; Conn. 7; Hawaii 4; Rhode Island 4; Maine 4; Delaware 3; Wash DC 3; Vermont 3; TOTAL= 248.
There were two other states Al Gore carried, but John Kerry lost: Iowa with 7 Electoral votes and New Mexico with 5. Obama could easily win either or both of these states.
Bill Clinton carried all these states plus 10 0thers in his winning campaigns. Yes, some of the original Clinton states are in what has been called “The Race Belt” and are unlikely to vote for Obama. They are Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana and Arkansas. It’s a fair guess Obama will not carry any of these states.
But, 4 other Bill Clinton states are possibilities for an Obama victory. They are: Florida 27; Ohio 20; Missouri 11; and Nevada 5. These 4 have a combined Electoral College vote of 63.
While there appears to be no reasonable chance for John McCain to break into any of the 19 Gore/Kerry states with 248 Electoral votes, there are 4 Bush red-states that are vulnerable to an Obama campaign. They are: North Carolina 15; Virginia 13; Colorado 9; and New Hampshire 4. The total number of Electoral votes for these states is 41.
Two additional red-states, not normally susceptible to a Democratic victory are in-play this time around because of the effect of a third-party candidate. The Libertarian Party is running former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr as its Presidential candidate. He has enormous popularity in his home state and also in the heavily Libertarian state of Alaska. Although these states are normally solid Republican, with Barr on the ballot taking as much as 6 to 10 percent of the vote, Obama may beat McCain in both Georgia and possibly Alaska too. Georgia has 15 Electoral votes; Alaska has 3. Georgia may prove to be the Florida of 2008, and Bob Barr the Ralph Nader of this election.
So, how will all this come out? If Barack Obama is assured of carrying 19 states with 248 Electoral votes, he will have at least a dozen opportunities to get the remaining 22 votes he needs for victory. In his best-case scenario, Obama wins 30 states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 382 Electoral votes. McCain would win only 156. In perhaps a more likely scenario, Obama carries the 18 Gore/Kerry states plus Washington DC and he manages a win in Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), and Georgia (15). This would give Obama 306 Electoral votes to McCain’s 232.
The 2008 Presidential election(s) will not be close. As the polls close in the Eastern Time Zone, state after state will be “called” for Obama by the eager beavers who chew the wood in the network studios. An hour later, when the polls in the Central Time Zone states close, Obama will be hailed as the President-Elect of the United States. John McCain will be left to go the way of Bob Dole and so many others.
Despite the dual victories of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the 62 million votes he received in 2004 (the most ever, for any Presidential candidate), there were 19 states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 and then in 2004 voted for John Kerry. Since these states also voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s, clearly they are 19 solid Democratic states. There is no reason to believe they will not vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008. They will and they represent 248 votes in Electoral College. Obama begins needing only 22 more Electoral College votes to be the next President. These 19 states with their Electoral College votes are as follows:
California 55; New York 31; Illinois 21; Pennsylvania 21; Michigan 17; New Jersey 15; Mass. 12; Washington 11; Wisconsin 10; Minnesota 10; Maryland 10; Oregon 9; Conn. 7; Hawaii 4; Rhode Island 4; Maine 4; Delaware 3; Wash DC 3; Vermont 3; TOTAL= 248.
There were two other states Al Gore carried, but John Kerry lost: Iowa with 7 Electoral votes and New Mexico with 5. Obama could easily win either or both of these states.
Bill Clinton carried all these states plus 10 0thers in his winning campaigns. Yes, some of the original Clinton states are in what has been called “The Race Belt” and are unlikely to vote for Obama. They are Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana and Arkansas. It’s a fair guess Obama will not carry any of these states.
But, 4 other Bill Clinton states are possibilities for an Obama victory. They are: Florida 27; Ohio 20; Missouri 11; and Nevada 5. These 4 have a combined Electoral College vote of 63.
While there appears to be no reasonable chance for John McCain to break into any of the 19 Gore/Kerry states with 248 Electoral votes, there are 4 Bush red-states that are vulnerable to an Obama campaign. They are: North Carolina 15; Virginia 13; Colorado 9; and New Hampshire 4. The total number of Electoral votes for these states is 41.
Two additional red-states, not normally susceptible to a Democratic victory are in-play this time around because of the effect of a third-party candidate. The Libertarian Party is running former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr as its Presidential candidate. He has enormous popularity in his home state and also in the heavily Libertarian state of Alaska. Although these states are normally solid Republican, with Barr on the ballot taking as much as 6 to 10 percent of the vote, Obama may beat McCain in both Georgia and possibly Alaska too. Georgia has 15 Electoral votes; Alaska has 3. Georgia may prove to be the Florida of 2008, and Bob Barr the Ralph Nader of this election.
So, how will all this come out? If Barack Obama is assured of carrying 19 states with 248 Electoral votes, he will have at least a dozen opportunities to get the remaining 22 votes he needs for victory. In his best-case scenario, Obama wins 30 states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 382 Electoral votes. McCain would win only 156. In perhaps a more likely scenario, Obama carries the 18 Gore/Kerry states plus Washington DC and he manages a win in Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), and Georgia (15). This would give Obama 306 Electoral votes to McCain’s 232.
The 2008 Presidential election(s) will not be close. As the polls close in the Eastern Time Zone, state after state will be “called” for Obama by the eager beavers who chew the wood in the network studios. An hour later, when the polls in the Central Time Zone states close, Obama will be hailed as the President-Elect of the United States. John McCain will be left to go the way of Bob Dole and so many others.
THE 2008 ELECTION - PART ONE
US Presidential elections have not usually been closely contested. The talking heads on the TV would have you believe otherwise, but they have 168 hours to fill, each week, for more than a year leading up to the election. How can they do that if they don’t “pretend” it’s a tight race? Still. History shows us, it rarely is. Why should 2008 be any different? It won’t be. It won’t be a close election. It isn’t close now; and the result won’t be either. And remember, it’s not the popular vote that matters. It’s the Electoral College vote that counts.
You might say the Electoral College has been screwed up since the beginning. In 1800, the Electors, in a fit of constitutional illiteracy, cast the same number of votes – 73 – for both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The idea of political parties – and thus party tickets, with one candidate slated for the Presidency and the other for the Vice-Presidency – was new. Party politics failed its first test, although the error was soon corrected and Jefferson did indeed become our third President, not the ill-fated Burr who had to make do, in historical terms, with a novel titled in his name, written by Gore Vidal. While most would argue Jefferson got the better of the deal, who among us would not like to have Gore Vidal write a novel with our name on it?
Despite the recent spate of talking heads on cable TV analyzing possible electoral outcomes, and making pronouncements about the “closeness” of the upcoming race between Barack Obama and John McCain (and Ralph Nader and Bob Barr as well), we really have no history of close Presidential elections. A tight election in the Electoral College is a rarity.
The first consideration is - we do not have a national Presidential election. Yes, we all vote on the same day. But no, we do not all vote in the same election. While we are subjected to endless national poll figures – running averages; daily and weekly changes – they mean nothing, absolutely nothing. The winner is not the candidate who gets the most votes across the nation. The winner is the candidate who garners a majority of the Electoral College votes. What we really have is 51 elections, all contested at the same time. Every state, plus the District of Columbia, votes – and the winner of each election gets the Electoral College votes designated for that state or for Washington D.C.
The combined number of Electoral College votes is 538. The candidate who gets 270 of them becomes the next President of The United States. We’ve had only a few very close election results. In 1796, John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson 71 to 68. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden by a single vote – 185 to 184. In many ways, the “closest” election ever was in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won 99 Electoral votes and John Quincy Adams won only 84. Yet, Adams became President anyway because two other candidates – William Crawford and Henry Clay won 41 and 37 Electoral votes, thus pushing the final selection into The House of Representatives. You can’t any closer than “winning” while losing. Of course, we all remember 2000.
Some Presidential elections which popular culture has declared as “close” actually weren’t. “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” was the headline in the Chicago Tribune in 1948, but the Electoral College vote was: Harry Truman 303 – Thomas Dewey 189. The famous election of 1912, the only one in which three Presidents ran against each other, was really a runaway landslide. Woodrow Wilson got 435 Electoral votes; Teddy Roosevelt got only 88; and William Howard Taft got a paltry 8 Electoral votes.
The narrowest margin in the popular vote was in the 1968 election between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, but in the Electoral College, Nixon swamped his opponent 301 to 191.
The most dominant candidate to ever run for President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ran, and won, four times and none of his opponents ever managed to get 100 votes in the Electoral College – not one of them.
Three times a losing candidate has managed only two wins out of all the states voting. Alf Landon won Vermont and Maine for only 8 Electoral votes in 1936; Walter Mondale could win only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, for a total of 13 Electoral votes, in 1984; and George McGovern, running against Nixon in 1972, was victorious only in what Nixon called “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” and Washington DC for a total of 17 Electoral votes. Modern Presidential losers generally get beaten up pretty badly in the Electoral College.
Stevenson got only 73 Electoral votes against Ike in 1956. Barry Goldwater scored only 52 votes in 1964 against LBJ; Dukakis managed 111 against Bush the Elder. More recent losers like Bush the Elder got only 168 Electoral votes against Clinton in 1992 while Bob Dole got even less, 159 as Clinton’s 1996 opponent. It has only been the last two Presidential elections where the Electoral College vote has been hotly contested. In 2000, Al Gore won 266 votes and in 2004 John Kerry won 251 votes in the Electoral College. In each of these elections, the switch of a single state would have made the other candidate the winner. And in each of these elections corruption boils barely beneath the surface. How close is close?
What will happen in 2008? Why will history reassert itself and make this election as clearly decisive in its Electoral College result as most past elections?
Read PART TWO…
You might say the Electoral College has been screwed up since the beginning. In 1800, the Electors, in a fit of constitutional illiteracy, cast the same number of votes – 73 – for both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The idea of political parties – and thus party tickets, with one candidate slated for the Presidency and the other for the Vice-Presidency – was new. Party politics failed its first test, although the error was soon corrected and Jefferson did indeed become our third President, not the ill-fated Burr who had to make do, in historical terms, with a novel titled in his name, written by Gore Vidal. While most would argue Jefferson got the better of the deal, who among us would not like to have Gore Vidal write a novel with our name on it?
Despite the recent spate of talking heads on cable TV analyzing possible electoral outcomes, and making pronouncements about the “closeness” of the upcoming race between Barack Obama and John McCain (and Ralph Nader and Bob Barr as well), we really have no history of close Presidential elections. A tight election in the Electoral College is a rarity.
The first consideration is - we do not have a national Presidential election. Yes, we all vote on the same day. But no, we do not all vote in the same election. While we are subjected to endless national poll figures – running averages; daily and weekly changes – they mean nothing, absolutely nothing. The winner is not the candidate who gets the most votes across the nation. The winner is the candidate who garners a majority of the Electoral College votes. What we really have is 51 elections, all contested at the same time. Every state, plus the District of Columbia, votes – and the winner of each election gets the Electoral College votes designated for that state or for Washington D.C.
The combined number of Electoral College votes is 538. The candidate who gets 270 of them becomes the next President of The United States. We’ve had only a few very close election results. In 1796, John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson 71 to 68. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden by a single vote – 185 to 184. In many ways, the “closest” election ever was in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won 99 Electoral votes and John Quincy Adams won only 84. Yet, Adams became President anyway because two other candidates – William Crawford and Henry Clay won 41 and 37 Electoral votes, thus pushing the final selection into The House of Representatives. You can’t any closer than “winning” while losing. Of course, we all remember 2000.
Some Presidential elections which popular culture has declared as “close” actually weren’t. “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” was the headline in the Chicago Tribune in 1948, but the Electoral College vote was: Harry Truman 303 – Thomas Dewey 189. The famous election of 1912, the only one in which three Presidents ran against each other, was really a runaway landslide. Woodrow Wilson got 435 Electoral votes; Teddy Roosevelt got only 88; and William Howard Taft got a paltry 8 Electoral votes.
The narrowest margin in the popular vote was in the 1968 election between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, but in the Electoral College, Nixon swamped his opponent 301 to 191.
The most dominant candidate to ever run for President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ran, and won, four times and none of his opponents ever managed to get 100 votes in the Electoral College – not one of them.
Three times a losing candidate has managed only two wins out of all the states voting. Alf Landon won Vermont and Maine for only 8 Electoral votes in 1936; Walter Mondale could win only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, for a total of 13 Electoral votes, in 1984; and George McGovern, running against Nixon in 1972, was victorious only in what Nixon called “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” and Washington DC for a total of 17 Electoral votes. Modern Presidential losers generally get beaten up pretty badly in the Electoral College.
Stevenson got only 73 Electoral votes against Ike in 1956. Barry Goldwater scored only 52 votes in 1964 against LBJ; Dukakis managed 111 against Bush the Elder. More recent losers like Bush the Elder got only 168 Electoral votes against Clinton in 1992 while Bob Dole got even less, 159 as Clinton’s 1996 opponent. It has only been the last two Presidential elections where the Electoral College vote has been hotly contested. In 2000, Al Gore won 266 votes and in 2004 John Kerry won 251 votes in the Electoral College. In each of these elections, the switch of a single state would have made the other candidate the winner. And in each of these elections corruption boils barely beneath the surface. How close is close?
What will happen in 2008? Why will history reassert itself and make this election as clearly decisive in its Electoral College result as most past elections?
Read PART TWO…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
