An Ordinary Person

Stop the GOP California Electoral College Power Grab

Stop the GOP California Electoral College Power Grab

The Electoral College should be abolished, but there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. A prominent Republican lawyer in California is doing it the wrong way, promoting a sneaky initiative that, in the name of Electoral College reform, would rig elections in a way that would make it difficult for a Democrat to be elected president, no matter how the popular vote comes out. If the initiative passes, it would do serious damage to American democracy. Click here for the full New York Times editorial.

from Alternet

Just when it seemed like the Democrats had a good chance of taking the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by GOP operatives to divvy up California’s electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.

From FairVote

To combat the feeling many states have of being voiceless in presidential elections, some Republicans in California and Democrats in North Carolina want to see their states’ electoral votes awarded by congressional district rather than by winner-take-all. That way, the Golden State’s GOP can presumably deliver a score of electoral votes to their party’s nominee, and Democrats of the Old North can give five for their team otherwise have none. That’s fair, right? Not quite. A new report by FairVote studies the flaws in alternative methods of allocating electoral votes.

From Newsweek

Our way of electing presidents has always been fertile ground for mischief. But there’s sensible mischief—toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will—and then there’s the other kind, which tries to rig admission to the Electoral College for strictly partisan purposes. Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008.

From ABC News

If passed, this could have a potentially big affect on a presidential election. a candidate who loses the popular vote in California could still walk away with a decent share of the electoral votes — as many as a winner would get in Illinois or Pennsylvania. The way the system works now — a presidential candidate who wins a majority of votes in California will take all of the state’s 55 electoral votes. Because California has been leaning left in recent years that system is good for democratic candidates. But a republican-backed group called Californians for Equal Representation wants to change it, and plans to put an initiative on the June ballot.

---

Republican Debate Recap

Republican Debate Recap

I caught the debate between Republican candidates for President this morning in a special edition of George Stephanopoulus’ Sunday morning political talk show. The event was held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, moderated by George Stephanopoulus, and included questions from viewers who submitted their questions via email or video. Click here for the Washington Post summary of it. See below for the Liberal Arts Dude recap

The first question, predictably, was on abortion. Predictably, most of the candidates on stage declared themselves “pro-life” (whatever the heck that means these days with many who are against abortion supporting anti-life policies such as the death penalty, war, etc. But that’s a digression that is for another blog post to deal with).

The exceptions are Rudy Giuliani who declared himself personally pro-life but ultimately, the matter of abortion falls on a woman’s right to choose with the advise of her physician. Tommy Thompson also declared himself pro-life but that the issues facing Americans are much larger than this one issue and he hopes the debate is not framed along such narrow lines. McCain declared himself pro-life and that such a stance is also a matter of national security (which elicited a big question mark from me because I see no connection between the policy of preserving “life” and the willingness to joke about bombing Iran).

The question turned to foreign policy afterwards and Ron Paul elicited the first loud reactions of the night (a mixture of cheers and boos) by openly and forcefully saying the troops need to come home. That the US is in Iraq illegally, that we went to war under false pretenses as in Vietnam and Korea and that the Bush foreign policy is defective. He’s the Republicans’ own Mike Gravel but with a larger following. I sure hope he doesn’t get lost in the shuffle too soon as he is the only one in the Republican bunch willing to hold the Bush administration’s feet to the fire and to call the issues plainly and truthfully instead of spinning it to electoral advantage.

Duncan Hunter and John McCain agreed on the surge as working. Hunter is quick to say that the Democratic candidates are all rushing to exit out of Iraq. McCain says we are winning and that we must succeed and morale is good.

Huckabee offered to win this war we must end dependence on foreign oil. Bownback says that what is missing is a “political surge” and that a three-state solution is needed to stabilize Iraq (partition Iraq between a Kurdish North, Sunni West and Shia South).

Guiliani seemed more interested in debating his Democratic rivals than his fellow Republicans onstage as he argued none of the Democratic candidates uttered the words ”Islamic terrorism” in their debates. He says no peace through weakness and appeasement and that American should win in Iraq. Which makes him, Romney and McCain all on the same page in regards to Iraq.

Tancredo tried to distinguish himself in this field by taking on a more of a warmongering stance by saying the “rules of engagement” must be reviewed to allow the troops to fight more effectively. He says the troops are fighting with one arm tied behind their backs and that no political solution is being offered by the Iraqis. This sounds to me dangerously like a call for the US to do whatever the hell it wants in Iraq and for the removal of all constraints in warfare such as the use of torture, being able to kill anyone indiscriminately—including civilians—without retribution, etc. This is how I read it and it frightened the hell out of me that someone is actually calling for this type of thing in a national political forum.

Tommy Thompson prevented the discussion from falling off the warmongering deep end by asserting that how the war is going (badly) is a failure on the part of both the President and Congress and that the Iraqi Parliament can’t realistically decide on a vacation for itself, much less a political solution to the civil war it is in.

Ron Paul, again upstaged everyone by speaking the obvious truth. That Neo-conservatives (he actually used that word!) engineered the war in Iraq for the purposes of profiting off the Iraqi oil reserves, that we had no reason to go to war with this Third World country, and that the current war in Iraq is an undeclared, unconstitutional war.

McCain, who oddly, seemed deflated, offered weakly that the surge is working, that the early stage of the war was badly mismanaged, but that we now have a strategy and leadership to succeed.

The candidates were then asked if they were in favor of the Grassley plan to fund health care for uninsured children with a tobacco tax. Predictably, most of the candidates dodged the question and tried to reframe the argument to something else.

Huckabee said the focus of American healthcare should be on prevention and wellness, rather than on intervention. Thompson said neither the President nor Grassley is right. That he agreed with Huckabee that the focus should be on wellness and prevention rather than intervention.

Tancredo once again goes for the radical individualist crowd by saying government has no responsibility to provide healthcare to people from cradle to grave. That it is unhealthy to have a government administered healthcare plan. And oh yeah, he made sure to display his xenophobic creds (to large cheers) by mentioning that 20 million illegal aliens are siphoning off billions of dollars in illegal health benefits.

Romney is the only one to offer a solution rather than a critique by saying “market-based” insurance has been used as a solution in Massachusetts and that this can be used as a model for the nation. Giuliani made a forceful statement that what we need is not socialized medicine but tax deduction, personal health savings accounts.

Duncan Hunter offered that it is illegal to buy insurance across state lines right now and that he would try and fix that. Brownback spoke it simply—no to government healthcare and yes to a market-based solution.

So everyone on the stage was against the Grassley proposal.

The next question dealt with Barack Obama’s proposal last week to bomb Pakistan unilaterally with or without President Musharraf’s consent if it meant being able to “take out Al-Qaeda.” (a comment I am extremely disappointed he made)

Giuliani says Obama was right. That we shouldn’t take the nuclear option off the table but he said he’d say it more diplomatically.

Romney gave a ridiculous explanation that he says Obama is confused—that he (Obama) would talk to enemies like Iran and Venezuela but will bomb allies like Pakistan. He says that he agrees the US should have the option of bombing a sovereign nation unilaterally but for the sake of diplomacy, one shouldn’t announce it on TV to the world. So I guess he is advocating being a hypocrite—smile and say you won’t attack but all the while keeping the option open of bombing the bejesus out of you if he wishes to do so.

Duncan Hunter says Obama made a mistake. He would first ask for Musharraf’s OK if he needs to bomb Pakistan.

The next question dealt with the Bush doctrine of “spreading democracy”—do the candidates support a similar doctrine?

Huckabee said it is not the job of the US to police the world and export its form of government overseas. Its job is to make sure the US is free and safe. Ron Paul again provided the fireworks by saying that it is wrong for the US to try and spread its values by any way other than example and he used the word “neocons” disparagingly once again! I’m really starting to like this guy!

Giuliani offered that democracy must first be established on a bedrock of rule of law and order, and stability. Democracy is a long-term goal but we must first get there through this foundation first.

McCain displays Fascist tendencies by saying “elections do not mean democracy”—this is an actual quote—it is the rule of law. “True democracy“ will take place under the rule of law. I guess dictatorships which call themselves “democracy” and which follow policies of repressing and crushing political opposition with violence still fall under “democracy” according to McCain’s definition—as long as they support US foreign policy objectives. Despite this bloodthirsty definition of “democracy” McCain declares that the US is still a shining city on the hill that the rest of the world should look up to and want to emulate.

Romney continues the slippery slide into the Dark Side started by McCain by saying democracy is not defined by a vote. It is defined by having values—which of course, can be anything. He asserts he is not a carbon copy of Bush and that he adheres to the foreign policy philosophy of “speak softly and carry a strong stick.”

Tancredo makes no bones about his Dark Side creds (which will be laugh out loud funny towards the end of the debate as he asserts Jesus Christ to be his personal saviour) as he says he will bomb and destroy the Muslim holy relics of Mecca and Medina and that he was proud when the State Department called his comments “reprehensible.” He strongly put forth that he will definitely use nuclear weapons in the war against Al Qaeda and that anyone running for president who will take away that option is not fit to be President.

Tommy Thompson (thank goodness) provided a reason to still see the humanity in Republicans by saying bombing holy artifacts will accomplish nothing except galvanize a billion Muslims worldwide against the US. But he maintains that we are still in a war.

Brownback offered that words matter from a President. And that Obama’s words were a mistake.

Next question: crumbling infrastructure of bridges, highways, etc. What are you gonna do about them? And how are you gonna pay for them?

Huckabee will fix them. And he laments how old and dilapidated these are.

Giulainai asserts such things can be fixed by lowering taxes and by raising revenue in ways other than raising taxes. Roney says the biggest source of revenue is a growing economy and he will make sure that’s what we have. McCain says no to pork before he gets cut off by George as we go to commercial.

The next set of questions dealt with the role of Vice President, alluding to the power and influence of Dick Cheney in the Bush White House.

McCain says we only have one President. Thompson says Cheney is an honorable individual. Romney says the president will decide the VP duties and gives a shout out to Bush and Cheney for “keeping us safe” the last six years. Brownback echoes Romney’s points. Ron Paul, once again, ruins the love-in and says Cheney is a “neo-conservative” and that the policies of that crowd has ruled the Republican leadership in recent years to disastrous results. He favors a return to traditional conservative values and to take back the Republican party from the Neocons. Go Ron Paul!

The next question dealt with Tax policy: are you in favor of the Fair Tax? I must admit I know very little about this reform which would abolish the income tax among other things and replace it with a national sales tax.

Huckabee: yes. Romney: we need to be careful and study the issue more. Giulaiani: eliminate the death tax. The Fair Tax seems too complex. McCain: need to simplify tax code; Tancredo: I’m a co-sponsor of the Fair Tax. Brownback: I support a flat tax.

Last question: Defining mistakes of your life?

Hunter: contemplating running as a Democrat at one point

Paul: not speaking forcefully enough for the cause of liberty and the Constitution

Huckabee: personal health

Romney: his previous stance as pro-choice which he now regrets

Giuliani: not in 30 seconds. He needs more time (jokingly which gave him a free pass on this one)

McCain: a combat decision that led to his capture in the battlefield

Brownback: not telling his family he loved them enough

Thompson: not being an advocate of breast cancer prevention enough with breast cancer running in his family

Tancredo (in the howler of the debate, considering his warmongering, bloodthirsty stance on foreign policy): that it took him 30 years to acknowledge Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

On that note, the debate ends.

---