Why an investigation is necessary

I'm cribbing from some of my online commentary...

Just as investigating the cover-up of Watergate revealed what was being covered-up, so too it will be here.

And the best part is getting the people from the CIA Annex and asking them if they had to sign an NDA.

Really, the Administration forcing people to do that shows that there is something to cover-up. And that would be signed under duress, and thus null and void.

The President has responsibility for those that serve under him, especially a hand-picked Ambassador sent to a place undergoing a civil war with terrorist attacks on-going. That is HIS representative there, HIS Ambassador sent there by HIM to do this job.

Where were the assets to extract him and his team in case things went south? Where were the naval and air assets necessary to do that in a place that is undergoing such turmoil? Who sends an Ambassador and critical national security personnel to such a place WITHOUT AN EXTRACTION PLAN?

Why was Stevens and, indeed, all the personnel put in such a vulnerable situation with no way out?

Why?

That isn’t a political question. It is a question that involves the Head of State, Head of Government and CinC: that is his responsibility to make sure that those people are protected with all means necessary and NOT having a way to get them out is dereliction of duty of the highest order because it was done ON HIS ORDERS.

That is before you even get to the cover-up. Investigating the cover-up will shed light on these questions because they are integral to the cover-up, itself.

The power of the Legislative Branch is to check the power of the Executive via ensuring that the Executive is executing the laws properly and carrying out the duties of President.  Watergate was a cover-up for a burglary for political gain, and this investigation into Benghazi will have that as a side-show, as well as the lack of care shown to those under the President's direct guidance and protection was done in an attempt to win an election.  That is political in nature.  The acts of neglect are matters of State directly attributed to the Presidential duties and no President is beyond such review.  I cannot think of a case similar to this one in which a personally appointed Ambassador for a specific mission in such a dangerous area was left without adequate protection and ready forces to get him out if things went to pot.  That is because Presidents take their job seriously and don't do such things unless it is absolutely and positively vital to the US and he is ready to explain that vital interest if things go wrong.

To date we have not gotten that, which is, in itself, dereliction of duty as Head of State.  Blaming the exercise of First Amendment speech as the focal cause for the attack is a gross attack on the rights of American citizens which is beyond the pale for any politician of any party to perform, not to speak of the President doing so and having cabinet members back him up on that.  There was zero justification for that, but that, as awful as it is, is just part of the cover-up and meant to be inflammatory and distracting from the actual events they are meant to hide.

Anyone trying to paint this as merely politics is missing the actual job of the President that was not done on multiple counts.

Even President Carter tried to rescue the Embassy personnel in Iran.

President Obama couldn't even manage THAT.

Or ordering the military to sanitize the site where this took place so that the INTEL carried by the Ambassador on operations in-country and in-theater would not fall into the hands of our enemies.  That was never done and that is the job of the President as well.

Why wasn't any of this done?

What is being covered up is woven into the fabric of the lies told after it.  And the best place to start with any after-action investigation is with the survivors.

The current candidates and their alignments

I will be using the break-out of factions within the Republican Party that I posted here to do some analysis of the current crop of Presidential aspirants within that party.  As this is the party that has been targeted for take-over by the Tea Party post-2010, any instant analysis gives only a snapshot on a much longer series of events that have been ongoing since that election cycle.  Do note that the elections at the State level in many States (WI, VA, NJ, FL as examples but this is a much larger phenomena than in just a few States) are trendline indicators on this analysis, which is to say they serve as reference points in 2009 and 2011 which cannot be ignored to show power shifts within the Republican Party.  What is happening is going beyond just the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party as that is finding its historical and intellectual roots in not just fiscal reality but a form of morality that is now beginning to take hold elsewhere within the party and the Nation.

To give a thumbnail sketch of the factions is, of course, a very glossy over-view as there are numerous individuals who can fit between factions at this point, with the Tea Party members becoming one of the major parts of this concept.  Yet the basic breakout will help to give a lay of the current and future political landscape, thus a snapshot of candidates is a window into the factional movements going on.  Thus the brief sketch of the factions and major portions of them are necessary.

1) SecCons - Security Conservatives - This is the traditional anti-Communist, Cold War group that have supported a robust military build-up post-WWII to confront the USSR.  They put the confrontation of Communism at an international level as a high priority and put FiCons and SoCons off to the side and often had Progressive internal policies while having anti-Communist external ones.  These were added to post-1999 by outcasts from the Democratic Party in the way of NeoCons who had an aggressive agenda for military use post-Cold War but would often overlook things like border security.  SecCons should be at the forefront of border security and immigration issues as well as anti-terrorism issues, but they have yet to fuse the public morality of a strong defense with strong Nation State boundaries as a quintessential element of being a SecCon.  Many do, yes, and that is a plus and in the future expect to see SecCons take a Fusionist page and begin to incorporate public morality into SecCon ideals.  To date that has not happened and the NeoCons are finding that they cannot make a case for external confrontation of terrorism or a 'freedom agenda' and have any credibility without addressing the closer to home border issues.  The NeoCons (socially Progressive, fiscally blind and Security moderates) are an odd fit with the changing nature of the Republican Party as they cannot seem to grasp the necessary social and fiscal elements to become Fusionist.  Many NeoCons have been Libertarians because of the expansive agenda of the NeoCons for human liberty, but cannot reconcile themselves to the actual means to achieve this.  Thus the NeoCons are foundering on the basis for their agenda, and without that they cannot make a lasting statement on the affairs of the party or the Nation.  In fact they may start to die out as a faction as members must search for a deeper set of foundations for their beliefs.

2) FiCons break out into two sub-factions.

a) Rockefeller Republicans - The home of the 'Establishment Republicans' is squarely here, with some of the older cohorts in the SecCon Cold War group having added to them up until 2010.  Money, power and longevity of having been in the top spots in the party infrastructure allowed the RR FiCons to mould the party to something they liked to the point of creating an alliance with the MSM that would favor candidates backed by the party hierarchy through the RNC and the two Congressional PACs that would send money not just to incumbents but to favored candidates in Primaries.  This system has allowed a lower level of feedback from the party base into the infrastructure of the party and it is the target of the Tea Partiers to start changing this system from the precinct level through the State level all the way to the National level.  If the RR FiCons lose planks at the National Convention to Tea Party backed State level groups, then the turn-over point will have been reached as the ability to gain a voting say to guide the party will begin to marginalize this group.  This group used to be Fiscally Conservative back when it started but are now Fiscally Moderate to Progressive and Socially Moderate to Progressive.  As the party changes beneath their feet and old line establishment figures are replaced by the other sub-faction members, this group will start to face the problem of the NeoCons.  An adjunct to this sub-faction are the Libertarians who have somewhat Moderate fiscal backgrounds but who are Libertines in the social realm.  This form of Libertarianism is joining the RR FiCons in being marginalized and slowly dying out.

b) Tea Party Republicans - Here is where the Tea Party first makes its mark and is still the home to the largest organization of Tea Party members.  TP Republicans are not just in the FiCon realms and are making arguments about fiscal concerns and Nation State solvency that cross both SoCon and SecCon lines and these are the Fusionists.  To concentrate on the TP FiCons for a moment, these are the people with the simple message of  being taxed enough already and stop the spending.  Any Nation should be able to run on a $2 trillion budget at the National level and not go over-budget.  That the US federal government cannot do that demonstrates that it is not being run well, wisely or competently and that it is promising more than it can deliver.  This means that, at some point, the promises will stop or the Nation will implode and the TP FiCons are for stopping the spending and living within the means that the economy can deliver via taxation without going over budget.  It is a fiscal 'back to basics' movement of spending no more than you take in and not promising what you cannot deliver without going into debt.  This set of simple, limited government ideals resonate deeply with any family or anyone living on a budget and seeing thrift as a way to have a better life.  As this is the majority of the Nation and a Nation of Paupers and Moochers are ones that will lose all their liberty, the moral foundations for this form of fiscal conservatism runs deep and outside the industrial RR FiCon comfort zone.  Libertarians who are fiscally conservative in the way of the TP FiCons join up to it but have problems understanding the Fusionist nature of the TP FiCon movment.  Being socially Moderate to Progressive or Libertine means that the categorization of financial freedom and liberty is not founded in the deeper understanding of human nature and the requirement that fiscal conservatism have roots greater than the liberty of man as individual alone.  Still they help to cement this faction in place even when they cannot or will not join in the larger social system that the TP FiCons are bringing to the table.  This sub-faction is now ascendant  in the Republican Party.

3) SoCons also break down into two sub-factions.

a) Christian Conservatives - This faction has held the line on abortion and has been fighting back on the encroaching of government on religious faith.  While holding to those moral beliefs they have also been courted by those wanting to make government the purveyor of those beliefs via social policy, which should be an anathema to this sub-faction, but has had numerous candidates over the years touting just this line.  Thus while socially conservative this sub-faction has elements of Progressive views in it and tends to not see the financial cost of providing a social 'good', which adds to a fiscally Moderate to Progressive basis for it.  Security concerns tend to divide this faction as well, between a Progressive view of 'open borders' and the slow dissolving of the Nation State and those that hold closer to the Traditionalist view of the Nation State being the guardian of our positive liberties and rights (not the granter of them).  The last decade has seen a slow reconciliation on social concerns within this group, although those with less than conservative views on finances and security can still play well in many areas of the Nation.  On the whole these are the people who drew a line in the sand based on the sanctity of life and did not realize that this must be true across the board, not just at conception but for the entire life of the individual which includes Security and Financial realms, as well.  As this sub-faction comes together across theological lines it will be attractive to more members of all faiths to stand up to the encroachment of government becoming a religious doctrine tyrant.

b) Traditionalist Conservatives - This faction runs a gamut of names from Federalists to Constitutional Conservative to Old School Liberal.  If the CC SoCons are the faction of faiths at the church or synagogue, the Traditionalists are the faith of the hearth and home where the basics of everyday life resonate deepest and most clearly.  These are the Settlers in US parlance, not necessarily the trailblazers and openers (the Jacksonians) but those that followed on to hew the rough shape of the land to make it fit for human habitation.  The Old Democratic Jacksonian contingent has the most affiliation with this sub-faction but tends to be Independent of persuasion, and when they do join the Republican Party they fit most closely into the Traditionalist sub-faction.  By teaching traditional budgeting and self-defense as the necessary guarantors of self-government and liberty, this sub-faction is one that will quickly join the Tea Partiers and become part of the Fusionists.  In this sub-faction practical budgeting is seen as a way of life and they haven't been too happy with their spendthrift compatriots in the party across other factions for decades.  Basic Federalist and Constitutional principles have, by the light of those living the closest to home and traditional ways, been trampled upon through the last century and instead of marching they have done the practical thing of leading good and solvent lives and not taking part in the slow erosion of the culture of the US by Progressivism.  It is not 'survivalism' but endurance and steadfastness that this sub-faction adheres to and the motto that 'God helps them who help themselves' means not taking a hand out but making your own way forward with your own work.  It is this sub-faction that Teddy Roosevelt railed against in the 1890's through the 1910's and it has endured no matter what the enticement, the scorn or derision has been that has been cast their way.  Libertarians who are not Libertines find themselves drawn to Traditionalism but have problems with the foundations of it in the basis of God granting liberty, individuals having granted liberty and exercising it, and then putting that into the social framework of the necessary evil of government to safeguard moral good, not promulgate it.

4) Fusionists - In brief these are the TP FiCons that are looking to dissolve and absorb those parts of the SecCons that still see National Sovereignty as a prime mover in human affairs and also understand that being fiscally insolvent is a danger to the Nation, and to the SoCons who understand that the basis for limited government is that it is our negative powers we grant it to protect us so we may use our positive liberties to build a strong culture and Nation.  It is very likely that the Third Great Awakening of America will allow the SoCons (all of them) to come to this conclusion and give the deep historical and theological background to the TP FiCon argument that will cement it in place.  This is the most overlooked, hardest to define and yet definite mover within the Republican Party as the TP FiCons continue to argue the basics and find that they come from traditional moral and ethical tenets that are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian theology and philosophy.  This faction only started after 2010, properly, and is now growing as seen through the prism of the candidates.

Now with all that, it is time to look at the candidates with this prism in place.  I'm going last name, alphabetically.

Newt Gingrich - Speaker Gingrich falls into two sub-factions and one faction.  The main faction he came from are the SecCons, the anti-Communist wing of the Republican Party, although he was brought up with RR FiCon foundations and a limited set of CC SoCon outlooks.  Put together Newt Gingrich's political life has been one of a Progressive on the concept of government being used to push a social agenda of CC SoCons while spending money to confront Communism.  His attack on welfare in the 1990's didn't end the concept of government welfare, but removed a few programs that were running harshly in the red and allowed for a temporary balancing of the budget based on the dot Com bubble and TeleCom bubble.  He did nothing to roll back government power in the social arena and 'welfare' has been rebuilt, bit by bit, by George W. Bush and Barack Obama plus both Republican and Democratic led Congresses.  It is because of his RR FiCon roots that Speaker Gingrich gets dubbed an Establishment Republican and to a large degree this is true, although he has led a career that makes him uncomfortable to the Establishment in that his affiliations, positions and income, post-government, points out the corruptness in the Establishment position.  As an individual he is gifted in oratory and immediate wit while he ascends but has a grating and petulant tone while in downturns.  His historical knowledge allows him to argue both sides of any argument passionately and then dismiss his prior passion when changing sides on an argument, thus making him a good tactical politician but one with a low trust factor to him.  With his conversion to Roman Catholicism comes the recognition within himself of being a flawed individual and that he seeks reconciliation with his Creator for that.  This must be recognized and his sins of the past remembered, even when forgiven, so that his new path can be compared to the one he had before his conversion.  If most politicians have a few skeletons in their closet, Speaker Gingrich has a vast army of skeletons which is a two-fold condition: they can be used to show up his problems but he can skillfully turn them back on those who bring up the dead, as well.  It must be remembered that it is he who put those skeletons in place and he appears to be very good at dealing with undead issues.

Ron Paul - Rep. Paul is a double edged sword when it comes to the factions in the Republican Party.  He is an 'open borders' and free travel SecCon which goes against the rationale for a Nation State put forward not just by the Founders but since Westphalia.  He also has a strong small government streak and small military outlook which should put him in favor with the TP FiCons but the recognition of George Washington's understanding that a strong military is necessary to safeguard a Nation is one that puts many TP FiCons ill at ease.  His hatred but signing off on earmarks, even when he doesn't put them in a bill is troubling for TP FiCons as well.  Amongst SoCons his religious background is a plus, his identification with the Framers and early Presidents also a strong point, both of which make him appealing.  With that said not having a thorough grounding in those early Presidents and what they did and why they did them makes Rep. Paul a difficult man to understand as such things as confronting Islamic radicals didn't start in the 20th century but dates back to Colonials and early citizens being taken by Barbary Pirates all the way back to the 18th century.  'Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute' should be something that Rep. Paul understands and yet just the opposite is the case.  He makes a weak case for Privateering which should be a strong case if he understood Law of Nations or the works of Grotius, both of which the Framers and early Presidents well understood.  For SoCons he cannot explain his newsletters which is part of the 'moral responsibility' for having them published under one's name.  If you cannot explain your executive position in publishing questionable parts in lucrative newsletters, then how can one be trusted at higher executive authority?  Being an executive means understanding process and procedures, and that means not only 'moral responsibility' but an analysis of how such things get to publication and what was done to remedy a process that was out of whack. In personal tone and tenor in relaxed settings he can do well but in ones in which he is unprepared for answers he tends to wander in his approach which is off-putting to many.  Rep. Paul's lack of traction outside of his delimited base of supporters is due, in part, to the incoherence of his message and inability  to trace amongst the beliefs that are presented to show how they are internally self-consistent and have a high functional capability with the external world.  If one supports a Hayekian interpretation of Wealth of Nations just say so and then be willing to back that up with other works to show how they go together.  Similarly the Austrian School of Economics is rather esoteric to most individuals and needs grounding in Foundational concepts and a better  and broader backing to its implementation to a republic via Law of Nations.  It is not enough to claim internal consistency and point to years of newsletters that do not distill down to anything quickly.  It is not necessary to be glib but it is necessary to pull out key ideas and relate them quickly to other concepts that resonate with the American experience.  In these things Ron Paul lacks and has lacked for years.

Willard 'Mitt' Romney - Gov. Romney sits firmly in the RR FiCon world of the Northeastern US both fiscally and socially as the Northeastern US is where RR FiCons came from, by and large.  The region of NY-NJ up to ME is the locus of the Old Establishment Republicans and one does not need to be in DC to be part of that Establishment, but in the proper class and group of individuals who have a nodding understanding amongst them about wealth and its purposes within the party.  Thus the concepts of being socially Moderate to Progressive is acceptable within those confines and that regional affiliation is used to make a somewhat weak case that Gov. Romney ran and governed like a Northeastern RR FiCon, which he did, but being a Northeastern FiCon is not, necessarily, a thoroughgoing form of conservatism.  He continues to stand by Romneycare even when the criticisms are that no government, at any level, should mandate purchase or penalties for lack of purchase of a good or service.  That includes local government, State government or the National government, and yet he stands by the State level argument which, in this form, is neither Federalist nor conservative as no government should be granted such power over a free people.  The duty of a Governor is not to make bad legislation tolerable, but to safeguard the rights and liberties of those they govern and if another level of government has placed an inordinate burden that is bankrupting the State, then the proper redress is against the larger institution for doing something it doesn't have the power to do and breaking its faith as a body made by these lower levels of government.  And as the fiscal power of a State government should be limited to the State, then accepting federal monies for a State program should be seen as not only contrary to the separation of powers amongst the States and federal government, but an outright attempt to render States into vassals of the federal government and no longer as the holders of the charter of that government.  Gov. Romney's abiding faith in a Christian variant is one that should be relatively appealing to SoCons and, to a degree, it is.  Practicing a peaceful faith that upholds human liberty as coming from God should be a key to Gov. Romney's appeal and yet it hits some residual bigotry against the variant (Mormonism) due to the history of that religion until recent times.  Provisioning of a social 'good' should be appealing, much in the way Newt Gingrich is appealing, and yet that falls flat with SoCons when it is coming from Gov. Romney.  A background and pioneering appeal to at least the T SoCons should be an obvious tactic and overarching theme given the Federalist argument and Mormon background, but this is not the case due to the ways that State government was run by Gov. Romney so that even in the NE US his views are not acceptable to the T SoCons.  He does get some limited traction on hearth and home religious concepts, but that has been the greatest extent of his inroads with SoCons.  With SecCons there is limited appeal by Gov. Romney both on anti-terrorism and secure borders advocacy, due to his time as Governor of MA.  Because MA is seen as socially Moderate to Liberal if not by and large Progressive (outside of some western venues) the ability of Romney as Governor to actually put himself into the security spotlight were delimited and that now limits appeals to SecCons.  Outside of that Gov. Romney has a moderate likeability factor that is tempered by his rather slick political approach.  His campaign style is reminiscent of the 1960's to late 1970's in style and while the packaging is late 1990's that is reflective of the candidate himself.  Gov. Romney fits in the late 20th century very well, but the early 21st is changing very rapidly and looking for something that a Governor of a Northeastern State just can't bring to the table unless they brought major and substantial rollbacks in government power and spending with them... which hasn't happened anywhere in the NE US.  If he had this background in 2000, say, he would have been a very strong contender, but by 2012 the last century is now being seen as antiquated in views, policy and process and Gov. Romney is not stepping up to the modern plate of conservatism or even of where moderates stand.  He has great appeal to a somewhat older demographic based on packaging and styling which goes with the RR FiCon demographic.  To date he has no break-out past the limited base he has come with to this process and that is proving a major stumbling block to him as the very establishment he appeals from is being undercut and slowly liquidated.

Rick Santorum - Sen. Santorum has a deep SoCon affiliation that is amongst the CC SoCons and only somewhat to T SoCons.  He has signed on to bills that expand government programs and utilized the somewhat Progressive view of pushing social values via government programs to do so.  His loss in PA was part of a general sweep against Republicans and took place before the redistricting of the State and major changes that happened there in 2011 at the State level.  Coming from PA he has a natural affinity to both the old Rust Belt and Midwestern US, which are favorable to him and his SoCon views.  While he may not be palatable to all the Bible Belt, he has backing that should allow him to do well inside that region, as well.  Beyond that Sen. Santorum has problems appealing to FiCons due to his spending record in the Senate.  He has worked hard to ameliorate this with TP FiCons, and speaks a somewhat different language post 2010 than he did prior to it, about tying fiscal concerns with social values.  In this he is a proto-Fusionist Republican, not fully founded in TP FiCon or their Fusionist outreach within the party, he is the first to really represent that outreach group even if his record and background are stumbling blocks for it.  Being a virtual unknown and from the Senate, he has had problems talking about the ties between small government conservatism and social values of the SoCons.  This does not mean that his views follow those of the TP FiCons and his lack of policy directives (actually they all lack policy directives but it is telling on outreach to TP FiCons) for the size, scope and power of the federal government means that he has limited ability to expound upon them.  For SecCons he is a bit of an enigma, as well, although upholding traditional alliances and needing to repair them post-Obama is a major selling point.  His message on National Sovereignty issues based on border security and debt have not been highlighted, and that limits his comfort zone with SecCons as well.  Taken together Sen. Santorum is not sitting exactly where he was expected to sit within the CC SoCon confines, which makes him a tough nut to understand amongst the other factions within the Republican Party.  He has an amiable outreach, if a bit shrill at times, but also has a likeability factor that reaches not just to CC SoCons but to other factions as well.  If there is a candidate with a doormat out saying WELCOME on it, it is Sen. Santorum and while he is willing to listen he is also willing to hold a dialogue with both critics and supporters which is a very, very hard thing to find amongst the other candidates.  What Sen. Santorum lacks in clarity (as in Ron Paul) he makes up for in willingness to hear others out and uphold his traditional beliefs and talk about how they work in the modern world.  If he is the first of the Fusionists then he is putting down a few major marker points on openness and willingness to listen, not just talk and expound, which makes for an interesting dynamic for future Fusionists to examine.  He is not right on all issues and has problems of appeal outside of his origination point within the CC SoCons and still has not found the necessary expansive underpinnings for a wide-ranging set of policies and conversation points amongst the American people.  With that said, if he does these things he will find himself amongst a growing set of the Republican Party that crosses all prior factional boundaries that is fully within the 21st century of US politics.  He isn't there at this point but the possibilities to be at that point of confluence are indicated.

That is my personal view of the candidates within the Republican field vying for the nomination.

YMMV.

Day of Decision

Tomorrow is a day of decision for Americans and a day of history.

It is a day we vote for our representation in our National government in the Legislative Branch, and for the past four decades and more we have become lax in this exercise of our franchise right.

Source: US Census

Our ancestors who founded this Nation fought hard so that we the people would get the franchise so as to be able to have a say in our governance.  To have that say we elect representatives to Congress, so the Nation may know about itself via those who represent us.  Voting is not about parties 'winning' nor about ideology, but a simple means for the Nation to know about itself in its National government so that all the views of the people can be heard and given airing for the people to know about.  This is the role of any government, but is particularly the case in a representative democracy in a republican form of government: we get wide say in our representatives and our government comes to reflect us in our voting for representatives at all levels of government.

We crossed the boundary of 50% for Congressional elections in 1974 and only approached that, once, in 1982.

Worse is that our turnout for Presidential years has been in a steady decline, as well, so that we passed the point of claiming even a plurality support for government, that being over 35% support via 'winning' of the entire population, some time ago.  Not voting is not a vote to support any 'party' or, indeed, our form of government and counting only those who do vote have left out the plurality, turning into a majority, that do not do so.  Winning even 50% of 60% turnout is 30% National support of all those eligible to vote and that was last seen in 1984 with 1992 being a 3-way race.  It follows then that the actual plurality that does not vote is sending a message that they do not support our government enough to exercise the right that so many around this planet give their lives for: a simple say in their government.

When such small segments of the polity come to power there is great trouble in any form of government as the oversight of the few with that power diminishes.  The history of this is such that we can no longer claim the necessary validity that some tyrants have had coming to power based on far larger turnouts, with even more parties to contest elections.  That history is not inevitable, however, as it is the people who give legitimacy to representative government, not the government that takes it or assumes it for itself.

America turned away from the regular cleansing of government when the Progressive movement took hold so as to concentrate power and slowly distance the people from their representatives.

Courtesy: thirty-thousand.org

It is a set of graphs that we will all come to rue if we do not assert our will as a people upon our government and, instead, feel that our voice has no say and that those in power will forever be re-elected to the point that they rarely concern themselves with those they represent.  Distant governors are tyrannical ones, as they have to stake in those they govern and thus feel that they are fit to rule, not govern, over people.

Thus tomorrow is a day of exercising our hard won rights, fought and died for, marched for, and that has left a bloody trail behind it so that we can, indeed, have a say in our own government.

Tomorrow we the people can make history and vote in more than a mere plurality but in a majority, and begin to place legitimacy back into government of, by and for the people.  To get a government for the people it must be supported by the people and consist of representatives from the people.

Voting for a candidate that reflects your outlooks on life, your viewpoints and who will protect your way of life is paramount at all times.  A people willing to govern themselves will hold their government accountable to the same high standards they hold themselves to, and change that government when it fails to meet those standards.  If you can find none in the parties to represent you, then your own name needs to be written in on the ballot so that you, at least, vote for someone who can speak to your needs, wishes and wants in life so as to be free to exercise liberty and create a better society without the interference of others to tell you what to do, how to live and what is right and wrong.  You had parents for that, and government is no fit parent to anyone, especially you as an adult.  Your vote is never 'wasted' even if cast for yourself: you have done your duty to your neighbors and our Nation and honestly voted for a better representative.  No matter who 'wins' your vote is the right one to cast because it comes from your own hand, guided by your mind which is governed by your heart.  There is no 'wrong' vote in voting as the act itself is good and necessary to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government.

I encourage all citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote to do so, as their voice is necessary for all of us to hear.  In our multitudes we come together as one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Only you can form this Nation by taking part in our governance so that you may be free to govern yourself.

May we be the most civil people on this planet able to guide ourselves so as to hold this Nation's honor as our very own.

I thank you for your time.

Morning thoughts on the off-year election

Living in VA I can only offer the biased view of the elections just past as seen from a local standpoint.  Yet the trends locally appear to be mirrored elsewhere in the US.

VA had been trending from 'Red' to 'Purple' since the mid-1990's as the population increases in the State shifted the voting patterns from rural and somewhat south towards Richmond northwards to Northern VA (NoVA) and the DC Metro area.  This off-year election saw campaigning that offered a stark contrast from the way they had been run since the mid-1990's and those campaigning in the older mode of pure attack ads, with very little positive to say about themselves as candidates, lost yesterday.  The winning candidates had ads were either purely positive about a candidate or ran with attack ads as half or so of the campaigns media buys.

As a side note on my viewing patterns, as they do skew what I see, the overwhelming majority of my time watching any television (approx. 3 hrs/day) concentrates on the History and Discovery channels, with a small portion of FNC added in.  I can't speak to the other channels and their viewership amounts or media buys, but for those cable channels, particularly my majority viewing time, was dominated by the Republican party and I can remember seeing less than 5 total Democratic party ads over the last month, while on my main viewing channels that would be what I saw nightly for the Republicans.

The winning themes of the ads were: lower taxes, efficient government, and a strong personal story featuring military service either by the candidate or by family members.  The McDonnell campaign did not stage any buys for 'response' ads to negative ads taken out by the Deeds campaign.  Watching the 100% map last night saw VA that had very few 'Blue' districts in the Governor's race, and the State's color was 'Red'.  Yet this is not the 'Red' of Social Conservatism, although a strong family presence for the McDonnell campaign was evident throughout the late campaign season.  Words that were not heard were: abortion, 'family values', 'litmus test'.  The Deeds campaign ran one of the worst campaigns State-wide that I have seen in my time in VA, dropping the rural background of the candidate and, instead, going for attack ads based on  a 20 year old college paper done by McDonnell.  That form of campaign worked well for Webb's Senate campaign, but flopped with a 20 point margin loss in 2009.

Down-ticket races run by Republicans (Bolling for Lt. Gov., Cuccinelli for Attorney General) both won with a mix of positive ads and attack ads, with the Bolling campaign nearly evenly split while the Cuccinelli campaign remained highly positive in its buys up to the last day or two.  Their themes were similar to the McDonnell campaign, save that the negative buys tended to place themes that were difficult to shake: 'Washington Insider', 'weak on crime' and 'higher taxes'.  Those negative themes bolstered by positive candidate buys, along with single response ads by all the candidates proved to be critical to those campaigns.

Local district campaigns also moved strongly into the pro-candidate positions on taxes, jobs and fiscally responsible government.  In NoVA this became a sweep in even in Fairfax County that had been tending 'Blue' for over a decade.  The Rust and Greason campaigns (Fairfax and Loudoun districts) had mixed mode campaigns that still favored positive themes over negative ones, with the Rust campaign side-stepping charges of not carrying through on previous campaign issues for State funding for autism by putting forward issues of VA financial problems requiring tough budget decisions.  Here the balance between what would be 'nice' to do was pitted against fiscal realities during a downturn that started over two years ago in Fairfax.  The Greason campaign buy had its initial message of attack politics evenly split with positive imagery of their candidate as a family man and veteran, both of which resonated with the Loudoun district he ran in.  The negative attacks were echoes of those further up-ticket: 'opponents as outsiders or carpetbaggers', 'weak on crime', and fiscally irresponsible.

Overall the positive themes were those of fiscal responsibility and taxes needing to be lowered, along with positioning government so as to help the working class in suburban districts, plus messages of military service and strong family backing.  The losing themes of digging up 'dirt' a decade or two old, balancing the budget with taxes and playing to the mid-1990's to 2008 campaign trends that emphasized negative campaigning lost.  They lost heavily in VA Statewide and locally.

 

Some observations on other races

NJ - The Democratic Party Machine has run into extreme problems in the Garden State.  From what little I've seen/read about the races there, they are a strongly set of concurring themes as seen in VA for the winning candidates: fiscal responsibility via lower taxes and less government, personal integrity, positive ads, and strong family backing for the candidates.  Four or eight years ago a major shift in NJ from the Democratic Machine would have been inconceivable, and yet, even with huge investment from the party in its candidates, those media buys have not proven to be effective.  Outspending your opponent is no longer a path to victory.

NY-23 - As I grew up in Western NY what I witnessed going on over this election cycle was what I had come to expect: an incompetent and clueless Republican party.  Upstate NY is a different beast than downstate NY (NYC to Albany axis, but mostly NYC): the urban center of NYC and suburbs of Long Island and those suburbs stretching north are far more socially and fiscally liberal than rural, small town and suburban upstate NY.  The Republican party in NY has been more closely aligned with the 'Rockefeller Republican' fiscally 'moderate' (ie. pay for everything with taxes) wing of the Republican party.  While fiscal conservatives do pop up in NY State, they are the exception, not the rule.  By not holding a primary for the NY-23 seat, the Republican party also played to its tone deafness towards their own party and placed someone who was highly irregular for that district into the election.  Scozzafava's backing for the NY State equivalent of 'card check', winning the Margaret Sanger award, and being unable to realize that in a downturn these are not in tune with the district she was in caused the Conservative Party of NY to run Hoffman against her and the Democratic candidate Owens.

A month ago Hoffman was an unknown.

A month later he garnered nearly 46% of the final vote tally after Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed Owens.

In that month in-between the old GOP insider system broke down when Gingrich endorsed Scozzafava and both Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman who ran on fiscal conservatism.  Gingrich's image as a Washington Insider had already been seen on the 'global warming' ad with Nancy Pelosi, and none of his 'we need a seat at the table' rejoinders were coming off well when the answer that fiscal conservatives expected was: NO.  By playing the Washington Insider game, Newt Gingrich demonstrated his own brand of DC-centric tone deafness and thinking that 'having a seat at the table' actually can get you what you want.  The rejoinder by him that Scozzafava would follow the Republican line on 'key votes' went no where, and the endorsements by respected, fiscally conservative Republicans of Hoffman saw a major push on his candidacy that would cause Scozzafava to lose in a three-way race.  That polling also showed that she split votes with Owens, thus leaving Hoffman the winner.  She left the race so that Owens could garner her votes and win the election.

 

Final thoughts

'Blue Dog' Democrats now are faced with a situation in which two key States for the Democratic party in the 2008 cycle have rejected the party on fiscal conservatism grounds.  Districts which once trended 'Blue' in VA now trend 'Red' and similar is seen in NJ.  This is not the advance of the Republican party, but the shift to candidates that address fiscal realities during an economic downturn, and who do not see more government, bigger government and more taxes as the way out of an economic crisis.  Much to the consternation of social conservatives, the idea of a 'litmus test' has disappeared on the Republican landscape overnight.  That brand of social conservatism from the 1980's to 2008 has just received a major blow as none of the issues that have been 'hot button' played any role in these races.

Contrarily social liberalism is not a path to victory, either, as none of the issues played up (at least in VA) gained any traction at all.  Free spending big government is not something that will garner winning vote majorities.  Nor will paying for those with higher taxes, fees, or any other scheme be something that can easily be shrugged off.  Government largesse comes with a huge economic price tag that, while not seen immediately on the individual level, effects the overall economy.

Where that leaves social conservatism is in a 'live and let live' mode that doesn't like to have 'purity' of anything, yet understands the need for strong families and commitment to the Nation, not its government.  Abortion will continue to play a role, no doubt, but it is no longer a topic that is ascending, but descending.  Restrictions on abortion will continue to be a theme in Republican politics, but will only play in the fiscal area of: 'government shouldn't pay for it, it is your life and your responsibility'.  That should be a rallying point, this idea of self-responsibility, but big government conservatives have demonstrated a tone deafness on this issue like no other.  That leaves social conservatives unable to thematically address that self-responsibility for families, local affairs and moral behavior becomes an over-theme to campaigns, thus leaving candidates to find that for themselves.  A 'take responsibility for yourself and don't look to government to get you out of your messes' is one that should resonate in the socially conservative realms, and yet it has not received an airing for decades.

That is because the message would have to adopt fiscally conservative values that endorse smaller government, lower taxes, a 'live and let live' attitude on many life styles, and not endorsing a government role in 'expanding' political correctness of the Left or Right.

'Blue Dog' Democrats are now seeing the beginnings of a flow towards what should be their home territory of fiscal conservatism, but they are also witnessing the break-up of Republican systems that have tried to enforce party unity from the top downwards.  The Democtratic party has been doing that for decades, and the social and fiscal sands that castle is built on will not hold, as it did not hold in VA or NJ.  To win in 2010 as a 'Blue Dog' requires adopting fiscally conservative themes and voting that way, while speaking out on those themes every time a microphone is in front of your face.  If you talk about 'party unity' and 'having a seat at the table', you will soon find yourself in Newt Gingrich's Washington Insider Intensive Care Unit.

Liberal Democrats will be doing their damnedest to enforce 'party unity' and to 'keep on message', and not realize that their majority rests upon districts now flipping against them.  Voting trends in 2009 will continue if there is still an economic downturn into mid-2010 and be reinforced by any major fiscal disaster by any State or in the Federal Government.  Thus the following States, now facing huge budgetary problems heading towards insolvency, become key States to watch: CA, MI, MA, NY.  CA, in particular, is seeing a melt-down unlike any other ever seen in the US as its taxes go ever upwards, its government size balloons and people, even the illegal aliens, run away from the State.  MI also has extreme problems and even with Ford doing well, the high spending, high tax system of MI has destroyed Detroit and is about to suck the rest of the State down with it.  MA has tried to give medical benefits to everyone, and now sees its system heading downwards.  NY has been a high tax state since the Erie Canal proved a revenue boon, and has never gotten off the increased tax syndrome that came when the Canal died, and the anti-business stance of the putative Republican Bloomberg in NYC points to the woebegone state of the Republican party in NY.  As NYC goes, the rest of the State must follow due to economics, and NYC is digging a hole in the river.

To survive this 'Blue Dog' Democrats are now in the position of either meaning what they say and breaking with the high tax, big government Liberal base, or seeing a landslide of epic proportions as the cost of such programs ripple throughout the Union.  As Republicans are now foundering and seeing parts of their party shift away from the central portion of it, the Democrats now face this exact, same problem: 'party unity' is a loser at the local level.  Voting for 'big ticket' items after this election is a strange form of political seppuku for 'Blue Dogs'.

What is interesting is that the Conservative Party in NY now has a moment in the limelight, and any astute party leader should push for a large registration drive over the winter, plus as many candidates as they can field upstate in hard hit regions economically.  Shifting emphasis to fiscal conservatism that backs strong families and personal responsibility can resonate in NY State, when coupled with the message: 'we are being taxed into poverty'.  Of course in NY that would be a good place for 'Blue Dogs', who vote their values of fiscal conservatism, to head towards.  No one thinks the NY Democratic Party machine can be broken in NYC in any substantive way.

But it can be broken in Upstate NY.

With the Republican party leadership heading one way, and its State based organizations moving another (save in NY where it is notable by its tone deafness), any 'Blue Dog' can see that they have the exact, same problem in their party.

Does this mean a third party?

That depends on many factors, and this winter will see if the Tea Party movement is effective in its organizing efforts in multiple States and if the NY Conservative Party can find an independent voice from the Republican party.  Meanwhile the Democrats in DC are now eyeing the fact that 2008 had personality trump policy, and that 2009 dramatically reversed that so that policy is now in the trump position.  Votes do matter.  Putting higher taxes and bigger government in place is no longer the default winning condition.  And that, too, is a change from the last two decades and a much needed one.

Examining health care in light of the powers of government

This is a personal opinion paper of The Jacksonian Party.

At Hot Air I ran across the question of the constitutionality of health care mandates as a possible power grant to Congress, and found a set of arguments both for and against that did not, to me, seem to scope out the exact power structure of the federal government.  As is my wont I left commentary, and I will now pass that on to you 'as-is' untarnished by a spell checker, without syntax check and otherwise for the amusement of the reader.

= = =

I think the better Madison quote comes from Federalist No. 41, in which he responds to the problems brought up by a number of Anti-Federalists:

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the Articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare and allowed by the United States in Congress shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The point brought up is that there are those who will ignore the semi-colon or otherwise misconstrue the actual verbiage in light of expedient legislation. The argument is not one of the logic involved, which those same Anti-Federalists actually point out, but one of human nature and the nature of governments over time moving away from restricted rights for government unless there are some very and extremely harsh checks on that power put in place. Hamilton's goal of a 'robust role' for government in commerce would be addressed by the veto of the US National Bank Veto of 1832, which addresses the very concerns about stare decisis, powers and limitations on government:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution. " Having satisfied themselves that the word "necessary" in the Constitution means needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to," and that "a bank" is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of the Government's "fiscal operations," they conclude that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress " and that " the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;" "but, " say they, "where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground."

The principle here affirmed is that the "degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the Legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is "necessary and proper" to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional.

Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it can not be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution.

Here, some 43 years on from Federalist 41, we have the outlay of powers and how they work between the States and the federal government and within the federal government itself.

First off is that precedent, both SCOTUS and legislative, is a dangerous source of authority especially when examining the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. You do not ignore previous decisions, but they must not trump reasoning on constitutionality.

Second each arm of the federal government has separate and independent powers, not co-equal powers. This is forgotten and misconstrued in the modern day, but these separate powers were designed as independent checks and balances on federal government so that each branch has its review of constitutionality independent of the other branches. Congress is to create laws that are constitutional, the President has the veto power to reject laws that are unsound, improper, unnecessary or unconstituional. The SCOTUS is given grant to judge on the constitutional basis of laws and strike down those not adhering to the constitution. These are in no way equal powers, but separate and independent powers. So just as it may be within the scope of power of Congress to do something, it must be judged first by the President as necessary and proper exercise of powers, and judged by the SCOTUS on those grounds examining their independent powers in that judgment.

Third and not to be forgotten, is that there needs to be a general assent to legislation from the States and the people, and acknowledging that such legislation is desired from those levels and can be executed via necessary and proper laws that adhere to the constitution. Thus with health care and the powers granted to government we hear rejoinders on:

- Precedent - A dangerous source of authority regarding constitutionality as prior judgments may not have taken the full scope and power of the constitution into consideration as it regards other areas of legislation and law. When judging the constitutionality of a law, the restricted scope of prior decisions may not represent a true reading of those power grants for a particular statute. In health care and similar areas there are few arguments utilizing Amendments IX and X, and if the court has been remiss in the past in considering those, than those grounds can serve as a basis for new suits on legislation to call into question the necessary and proper part of powers granted to the government when enacting laws.

- Necessary and Proper - Even granted that the federal government may have a role in health care, can Congress create a necessary and proper law that adheres to its constitutional restrictions as to being wise and fiscally sound, and having the general support of the States and the people? These are not minor considerations and no election changes the fact that the people and States have been indifferent to passing this question on to the federal level. Thus, without that clamor and, indeed, the overwhelming majority not having expressed a want of federal intervention, there is little that Congress can stand on. Even appealing to precedent in this case must take into consideration all of the Congresses that have brought up this question, all the States that have considered it, and the general view of the electorate separately. Precedent does not lay basis for good law without these legs to stand on via precedent: the SCOTUS is not alone in having a history, and all relevant history must be examined as part of new legislation.

- Powers and Privileges - Those organs that Congress creates are made via the powers it has in the constitution. If the powers granted are not necessary to the purpose involved, then Congress cannot create such an organ of the government as it does not have the power to do so. If created without power to do a purpose, then it is not a constitutional object of government nor a means to achieve the ends of Congress. This is a question that must be established in light of mixed precedent, necessity, propriety and the actual extent of the power grant to the federal government. Just because legislation is expedient and towards good ends, that does not give it necessary and proper standing within the constitution, nor power to Congress to enact it.

An unlimited interpretation of 'general welfare' wipes all question of limited power away and reduces the Nation to a state of tyrannical government. If the form and function of these powers were so sweeping, the constitution would say so, and yet it defines the exact opposite, particularly when examined in Amends. I, II, V, IX and X. The specific things the federal government cannot do are joined by a general rule that what is not given to the federal is retained by the States and the people. Do note that the understanding of power functions is outlined in Law of Nations, specifically mentioned in the constitution and understood by the founders so that when power grants are seen in the document, it is easy to examine the similar sections of Law of Nations and see what the scope and meaning of the powers are (as witness George Washington's Neutrality Proclamation) and then examine how those scopes of powers continue as grants from the people to the federal government. From that additional questions in regards to security functions and their organs (CIA, NGA, NSA, etc.) are to be examined in the Commander of the Armies and the Navies power as they are, at heart, military functions for National Security (there may be too many of them, yes, but that is a different argument). Likewise to uphold the laws of the US, Congress has created the FBI for general laws and other organs for things like Immigration and Naturalization. Something like USGS and NOAA come under the part of mapping and charting necessary for military purposes and for understanding the scope and breadth of the Nation. Something like the Dept. of Agriculture, Education, Energy and so on are less viable on these grounds and less accountable as they have fewer functions directly tied to constitutional grants and could, and probably should, receive review on the necessary and proper functions, as well as if these are sound bodies to have or even wanted by the States and the people.

Healthcare under federal regulation? Is it necessary and proper? Is there an established hue and cry over many years for it from the States AND the people? Can it be done within the power grants? Can it be made fiscally sound? Have established precedents considered all aspects of such a power and the restrictions placed on them by the constitution and amendments? To date I have no good answers that lead to 'yes' on these.

YMMV.

= = =

So ends my commentary at Hot Air on the topic.

Yes, my commentary does tend to run long, as do my pieces, as finding the collection of simple outlooks that underlie a complex problem is not easy nor amenable to simplistic scrutiny.  Finding and defining the parts tell us much about what the whole of something should look like and how it should work, and without finding those necessary and simple parts that make a complex problem, one cannot begin to address the problem, itself.  This is not a simplistic 'root causes', as given by many in an attempt to thwart any real progress on problems, but to thematically find and identify those parts of a problem that are salient to it and discarding emotional baggage attached to them.  Those seeking 'root causes' in the emotional baggage never come to address the actual, and underlying driving forces of a problem and find themselves always resorting to an emotional appeal from the lovely baggage they are rooting through.  I like to know why the baggage fell off the train in the first place, and will only look to the baggage as a cause if there is evidence that the baggage is the cause.

My Congratulations to President-elect Obama

Dear Sen. Obama,

Congratulations on being the President-elect of the United States.

I will do with you as I have done with all past Presidents: praise you for what I think you do right, criticize you for what you do wrong and seek to ensure that you faithfully carry out the duties of President of the United States within the bounds and limits set by the US Constitution.

That is my duty as a citizen using my rights to ensure my liberty and that of my fellow citizens. Because all Presidents are citizens *first* and President *second*.

Sincerely,

A Jacksonian

To the supporters of President-elect Obama,

I have heard the 'racist card' played many times in the past 18 months and seen little evidence of *any* racism in the campaign, save on the Democratic Party side of things.

Now that you have a 'hope & change' leader, the very first requirement for change is within yourself.

Those who see the world through the sole lens of race have a word attached to them by doing that.

It is: racism.

For attacking so many in opposition as being racist without any demonstrable proof of that activity, the one proof that is available, that of an individual who is NOT white being elected to the Presidency of the United States, now, in my mind, burns the 'racist' card to be played against America, entire sections of the political spectrum and, verily, anyone who does NOT demonstrate their racism in an obvious manner. No 'code words' or 'ciphers' allowed.

Those who use some attempt to put 'code words' or 'ciphers' for race into politics are racists, also. In decrying it so much, those now doing the decrying are, themselves, open to that attack of being racist.

Hope, change and atonement begins at home.

Which means everyone who has brought up the President-elect Obama's race in the past 18 months or so.

You might want to note that the rest of the country got over this some time ago. That country cannot be intoned with a 'KKK' in it any longer, save as trying to foster racial hatred by those bringing such a slur on this great Nation up to attack the Nation or individuals.

Care to join the majority?

Or will you cling to your bitter tracts, your useless marches and continue to cling to the hatred of your fellow man that is the guiding principle of racism?

Because a few of those who actually judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin are getting fed up with you who are stuck in the past and who see the world in racist terms.

Because hating whites because they are *white* is also racism.

Just in case you missed the point.

So come on and join the post-racial America that has been before your eyes for a few decades now, the one with no special standards, save that of personal achievement, capability and seeing that the ills of individuals are due to their own lacks and not that of society.

This election killed that portrait of America. Best not try to invert the colors and call it 'equal' or 'fair' in terms of racism, unless you truly don't believe that All men are created Equal. That is not a bad America, out there, the one that elects a non-white individual as President.

That majority that voted for him doesn't need the 'healing' any more.

Those clinging to their hatred and malign views based on race towards America?

Yeah, they *do*.

And I noticed none of those campaigning for John McCain or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader did so.

Just in case you missed that point, too.

Good luck on that hope & change business.

You will need it.

Have a nice day,

A Jacksonian

Who gets the 50 Questions?

Yes, now that there are 50 Questions to hand out, they get to go to the major campaigns, first.

So this week is the major party candidates as listed at Ron Gunzberger's Politics1 Site. My thanks to him for compiling and updating this list and as new candidates arrive they will also get a copy of the questions. I will just be taking the HTML from my post, making a letter and sending it to every campaign. They will get the text of the post, plus minimal introductory sentence with link-back to the post. If they do not have html capability then they get the plain text of the post plus a plain text html link in the introduction. And there are going to be some categories of response that will be given:

1) No response. Typical expectation of Party Elites who do not need to respond to Citizens. Call this the 'Aristocratic Response'. Automatic email replies will be considered this after 1 week from that reply if nothing further is sent.

2) A staffer will 'flack' the response. This is pretty much standard for all the Congresscritters and is representative of their not wanting to be in contact with real, live voters that are mere Citizens of the Union. Hard to categorize this as it is the 'run of the mill' way campaigns have to deal with anyone so as to not bother their poor Candidate with actually having to think. So it can be called the 'Plastic Bubble Response' as any communicating with real people might cause an infection that would be instantly fatal to the Candidate's thought processes. Candidates in this are so highly protected that they have no way to actually think about alternative ways of doing things nor address them.

3) The 'Technowonk Response'. This category is reserved for any campaign that puts forth their 'programs' and does not wish to deal with their outlook on various subjects that matter to the Union. In this category is also such responses as: 'just read this/that book the candidate endorses' and 'we have all the programs we support up on a website.' These are not addressing issues, but addressing details. Can't know if they are the right details unless the issues are addressed.

4) The 'BTDT Response'. Very few Candidates can actually do this as very few have actually laid out their views on America and philosophy of governing. If they have actually written a book on same and then still *require* payment, then one must begin to wonder exactly *why* they should be paid for something that should be freely available to all Citizens if that is their true viewpoint. Those unable or unwilling to put out their text into the Public Domain will gain the 'Extortion Response' as they do not look for the Nation as a whole, but to line their own pockets and let people hope they will govern by what they have stated.

5) The above items 1-4 should cover 99.99% of all Candidates given past views on how others have acted once they have gotten into High Office. Anything else will get a 'Singular Response' and demonstrates some minimal level of open-ness, fairness and willingness to engage in even minimal dialogue with the Citizenry. In truth, I do not expect to get ANY of these.

Now time to get the list going and I will follow the ordering on the Politics1 site and only those OFFICIALLY announced for anything get this:

1) Sam Brownback - website - Now, his website uses the ever lovely 'webform', so that will now get a filling out. And the webform is NOT html enabled. So be it, they get a hardcode plain text of it at the start and they can find it at their leisure. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Jim Gilmore does NOT have an official contact site as yet. And I do not trust anyone at a Drafting committee to be able to actually get information through to their espoused candidate. So nothing sent his way until he gets his act together.

3) Rudy Giuliani - Has an exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

4) Duncan Hunter - Has a website under construction. Will wait for developments.

5) John McCain - website - Webform. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

6) Ron Paul - website - Has email contact at the site. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Mitt Romney - website - Oh, my, a 'Policy Contact'! Well, that gets an email. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Tom Tancredo - Has exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

9) Tommy Thompson - website - General info email at site, and I do want general info! Handy, that. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

Fun so far, isn't it?

Now for the Democrats:

1) Joe Biden - website - General info email at site, still handy! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Hillary Clinton - website - Yes, the good General Info is there too! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

3) Chris Dodd - website - Now, what sort of politician first puts up a recruitment interstitial page? Luckily one can skip it. A webform! Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

4) John Edwards - website - What is it with these 'join up' interstitial splash pages? Yes you can skip them... but it is a bit off-putting if you are trying to find OUT about a Candidate and you get the recruitment poster. A webform! Sent but they have a Confirmation Page! Amazing! [24 JAN 2007]

5) Mike Gravel - Dear Senator, you webpage currently gets a 403 Forbidden. Suggest you get someone to put up a nice little photo page and a 'coming soon' on it.

6) Dennis Kucinich - Now here is something special on this day, 24 JAN 2007: Mr. Kucinich has TWO web sites. The first one is non-functional and the website has declined to show the page. The second is all snazzy, save for the broken center section in my web browser... but, by looking around you can get in contact with Chad at the website! Poor Chad. One hopes he is not hanging. Time to send him a lovely little email, just as formulaic as all the rest without one peep on the non-functioning of the sites in question. They might want to hire Gen. Info in the future... Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Barack Obama - website - Gen. Info on duty there! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Bill Richardson - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

9) Tom Vilsack - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

Well, that is it for the 'big name' folks. A long morning, but worth it.

This post will be updated as necessary over time and most likely broken out a bit more.