The Blog Less Traveled

Well, this election just got a little more interesting. The selection of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate will certainly add a little spice to the presidential race. She was definitely seen as a dark horse candidate by most political observers. The press will be burning the midnight oil over the next few weeks digging up everything it can about her, good and bad. Overall, I think that she is a net positive for McCain. She has proven to be a capable and formidable executive and campaigner. She doesn’t shy away from issues and takes strong ethical stands and makes fiscally sound decisions. I think what I like about her most is how she comes across as a real and genuine person, not some politically calculating individual. She definitely doesn’t fit the profile of a typical female politician – mother of five, good looks, a basketball player, hunter, fisher, etc. A refreshing change, don’t you think?

She has two potential weak points. The current ethics investigation in Alaska may or may not be of any consequence. Her experience in foreign policy is another matter. As I’ve said in a previous posting, I’ll take character with intelligence over experience almost any day. There are enough advisors and policy experts out there to get someone up-to-speed. Plus, if lack of direct foreign policy experience is going to be a showstopper for the #2 position on the Republican ticket, what does that say for the same lack of experience for the Democrat’s #1 position? I thought it was pretty funny how the first statement out of the Democrat’s campaign was her lack of experience. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! When those words got thrown back at them, they suddenly realized their “Duh” moment and backed off.
Of course, some will say that this is strictly a political calculation on McCain’s part. He wants to appeal to women voters and some Hillary supporters disenfranchised with her exclusion from the Democrat’s ticket. I’m sure there’s a certain amount of truth to that. It does take some of the air out of the Democrat’s balloon. However, on balance, I think she makes the Republican ticket a better and stronger one.

And now for my prediction. Assuming that McCain can hold his own against Obama in his two debates, I predict that the Republicans will win the November election if Governor Palin does a fairly good job in her debate against Senator Biden. Let the games begin!

I remember during the presidential election campaign in 1992 that the Democrat’s theme was something along the line of “It’s the economy, stupid.” People supposedly weren’t all that interested in foreign policy or other non-monetary matters. They were only interested in the economy and how it affected them. Although it looks like this election cycle will be a repeat of that theme, I’d like to offer the Republican campaign the “It’s the character, stupid!” for their theme.

I’ve always felt that the character of an individual trumped all other qualities when running for office. For that matter, I think it’s the defining characteristic for most things in life, not just in running for political office. Anyway, I’m not saying that knowledge and experience aren’t important when dealing with foreign policy or economic issues. They certainly enhance your credibility in tackling these problems, especially in our current environment. Now is not a good time to be learning via on-the-job training. However, having said that, I think that anyone who can think on their feet and has a basic grasp of these fundamental policy issues can make the transition rather quickly and with little negative impact on their office. Anyone can get up-to-speed by surrounding themselves with competent advisors and trusted colleagues. But they better be very competent and trusted in the present situations we face.
No, the problem is taking this information and experience and making the right decisions with it. A person with character bases their decision on what is morally and ethically right. It’s simply a decision to do the right thing. It’s that little voice in your head that always pops up and gives you pause if you’re about to make a decision that doesn’t quite seem right. I think we’ve all had experiences in life where we wanted to take the easy path or make the best choice for ourselves but ended up making a decision that was not in our best interest but deep down felt like it was the right thing to do.

Don’t get me wrong. Neither candidate is a paragon of virtue. We all have our failings in life. We’re only human. However, when I look at the candidates, their contributions and choices in life, their mentors and friends, then the choice becomes very clear for me. This election will be at a critical juncture in our country’s history. The stakes are as high as they’ve ever been. Do we come to our fork in the road and turn left toward a one-way street of socialism and feel-good policies or do we make a right turn toward individual and collective responsibility for our countrymen and ourselves? The decision on whom to vote for this election has never been easier.

I find that “changing” only one word in the Democrats’ latest slogan makes it much more believable. Here are a few examples.

Senator John Edwards – finally admits to extramarital affair after constantly lying to the public and denying it. The following was Edwards’ response in 2007 to CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
“Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans — including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them. … I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And — and certainly that goes to a part of that.”

Senator Ted Kennedy – He’s all for the environment and alternative energy but has been fighting tooth-and-nail to keep a wind turbine farm from being constructed a few miles from his own home. Also, he has basically gotten away with murder or at the very least voluntary manslaughter. He drove his car off a bridge after drinking at a party and without a valid driver’s license and left his mistress-for-the-night to drown at the bottom of the pond. Didn’t report the accident for over eight hours. The first people he contacted after the accident were two of his lawyer friends. The only thing he was cited for was leaving the scene of an accident. Four years later, at the height of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, “Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”

Senator John Kerry – “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

President Bill Clinton – one of only two presidents ever impeached. After lying to the public about his sexual encounters with a White House intern, he later lied under oath on more than one occasion. His pardon of friends and felons only hours before leaving office speaks volumes of his true character.

Vice President Al Gore – goes trotting around the country and the world in his private jet and SUV spewing tons of carbon telling all the “little” people about global warming and how everyone needs to sacrifice. Maintains a residence in Tennessee that uses more energy than 10-20 normal homes.

General Wesley Clark – Concerning his support of the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq, Clark said to the New York Times, “At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question.” Again, when asked by a Times reporter, he said, “I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it.” However, when asked the next month by CNN whether he would have supported a Congressional resolution on the Iraq war, he said, “The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It’s that simple.”

These are the standard bearers for the Democratic Party. Democrats should feel proud. I could list dozens more, but I’ll get too nauseous. Yes, there are some Republicans that have been guilty of less than stellar behavior, too. However, they don’t normally stay in prominent leadership positions in their party. They’re usually honorable enough to go quietly. Democrats seem to be enamored with these people and think their transgressions are perfectly normal. Do you really think the current Democrats’ slogan, “Change We Can Believe In” really means anything?

A few months ago, I wrote that one way to fix our political system was to term-limit our Congress. Putting limits on them would reduce their propensity to deal with issues based on how it would affect their chances for re-election. Unfortunately, with all the seniority in Congress, the chances of getting them to pass legislation limiting their terms are slim-to-none.

With this in mind, I’ve come up with a simple solution that would effectively provide the same outcome without any help from Congress – Always vote for the non-incumbent! This will provide the exact same benefit as having term limits. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, just vote for the person not currently in office. This sounds a little crazy, but hear me out.

One objection I’m sure many of you are thinking of is that if, for example, I’m a Democrat, and a Democrat is currently in office, I have to vote for a Republican. Not necessarily so, or at the very least, highly unlikely. During the primary season for your party, just vote for the incumbent’s opponent. If the challenger wins the primary, this will effectively allow you to keep voting for your party. Ideally, I would like to see the two-party political system disappear. There’s too much divisiveness and voting going on strictly based on party lines. In its place, I would put in a system where the top four vote-getters during the primary season are put on the ballot. No party affiliations whatsoever. Each candidate would garner their votes based on their stand on the issues. The perfect situation would be for some non-partisan panel to come up with a list of questions on the most pressing issues for that state/district and require each candidate to provide a written response for publication in the local newspaper.

As I’ve said before, limiting a politician’s term will hopefully make them focus on their real duties and responsibilities of the office that they hold. A perfect example of this loss of focus is the adjournment of Congress yesterday. Rather than tackle the energy crisis facing the American people, Congress voted to adjourn for five weeks. In doing so, the Democrats avoided having to vote on any energy package that would have alienated their environmental friends. They weren’t looking out for the American people; they were worried about re-election and offending all their big money campaign contributors. I don’t think our forefathers envisioned or would have approved of a system of lifelong service as a politician. Too few politicians are holding too much political power. It’s time the American people wake up and reclaim their power by voting.

This may not be a perfect solution, but I think it’s a lot better than what we have right now. What do you think?

Since General Clark doesn’t seem to know when to shut his mouth, I’ll post another article myself. Liberal-leaning media outlets fall all over themselves when it comes to printing disparaging remarks about a Republican candidate. And when it comes from a military general, they’re salivating profusely from the mouth. However, what you almost never hear are some of the “inconvenient truths” about Clark himself. Let’s discuss them, shall we?

General Clark served as the U.S. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during Clinton’s presidency and our short-term war in the Balkans. What many people don’t remember or realize is that Clark was relieved of his duty early as NATO commander. Shortly after the end of the conflict, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “The reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues.” If that isn’t a sharp slap in the face to a military man, I don’t know what is. Clark has always been a self-serving, photo-grabbing individual. While serving as NATO Commander, even his Secretary of Defense told him to get his face off the TV. Now, he’s constantly seen on the media circuit, trying to keep himself in the limelight.

Finally, let’s discuss the premise of his argument concerning McCain’s qualification to be president. Clark said, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” That’s true enough. However, how he handled himself subsequent to that event speaks volumes. I can’t begin to imagine the sustained torture he endured for over five years in captivity. What many people don’t know is that the North Vietnamese offered to release him years earlier when they found out that he was the son of a Navy Admiral. He refused the offer. Those years of torture exacted a punishing toll on his body. From all the times that they broke his bones, he is unable to lift his arms above his shoulders.

I certainly don’t agree with McCain on many political issues. He is not my first choice for president. However, Clark’s characterizations are just plain wrong. No, Senator McCain doesn’t qualify for the presidency for being shot down in North Vietnam. How he has carried himself since then does.

I’m finding the Democratic Party, and Senator Obama’s campaign in particular, as becoming more and more disingenuous as time goes on. Today was certainly a low point in my mind. Their campaign has been constantly saying that they’re going to run a clean campaign and be different than the “typical” Washington-style variety. They’re all about change and this “new direction” that they’re going to take this country. What a joke! They’re as bad or worse.

Today, General Wesley Clark, one of Senator Obama’s military advisors, took cheap shots at Senator McCain’s military service. To say that because he was commanding an aviation squadron during a non-war period doesn’t count as executive responsibility is incredibly dishonest on his part. He was in the Army long enough to know the incredible responsibility and accountability given to commanding officers. It’s as demanding as any job you can ever find in the civilian world. If this came from someone who never served in the military, I might cut that person a little slack. However, coming from a retired Army general is, without a doubt, nothing but a cheap political shot. I’ll bet if you talked to any military man or woman without a political agenda, they would say that General Clark was a jerk. This man has lost any respect from me that he had earned from his military service.

If these are the people that Senator Obama is going to surround himself with, God help us if he’s elected to serve as our president.

This year is going to get real ugly, real fast. Things are so volatile right now with the Democratic Primary that the General Election is going to be a real barnburner. Unfortunately, the American public will have to endure another five months of lies and half-truths. As far as I’m concerned, the political process is too far removed from reality that only a radical change can save the system and our country.

If I could make one change to our system it would be to term-limit our Congress. To me, that is the only way to stop this madness. Politicians are becoming too powerful and lobbyists are controlling too much of the political process. What I would propose is to limit a Senator to a single six-year term and a House member to two three-year terms. This would also have the benefit of removing one election cycle from the current system when running for a House seat. I think that six years is enough time for an individual to learn the basics of the job and make an impact on the system. It would also completely remove any incentive for a Senator to make decisions based on improving his chances for re-election. Another benefit of term limits would be to put everyone on a more level footing and not give a few senior members too much power. Senators would arrive in Washington with no distractions of worrying about getting re-elected. Even House members would be more focused on dealing with the real problems that need to be addressed.

I really don’t see any other way of fixing the system. Too few people have too much power in the legislative body. I have little confidence in our current senior representatives. It’s time for a major change. Anything less would be like applying a band-aid to a ruptured artery. What do you think?