Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
McCain on Personal Use of Campaign Funds
Earlier today, Politico's Jeanne Cummings wrote about how the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 over the last month on wardrobe items and salon expenses for Palin and her family. When asked about it, the McCain campaign issued a statement basically brushing off the question and saying that there are more important issues to be spending time on right now than Palin's wardrobe expenses. In essence, the McCain campaign is trying to tell us that this incident does not matter.
But does it? The John McCain of 1993 certainly would have told us that it did. In fact, he did so very convincingly during a speech on the Senate floor regarding the abuse of campaign funds. The Daily Kos shares McCain's speech here.
Perhaps the real question should be why McCain no longer believes that personal use of campaign funds ought to be a serious issue.
But does it? The John McCain of 1993 certainly would have told us that it did. In fact, he did so very convincingly during a speech on the Senate floor regarding the abuse of campaign funds. The Daily Kos shares McCain's speech here.
One major reason the public does not approve of Congress is that they believe we are isolated and nonresponsive, and we, of course, do not want to maintain a policy that encourages the Congress to be even more separated and disconnected from the people.
If we in Congress learned one thing from President Clinton's $200 haircut last week, it should be that the public does not approve of its elected officials being treated as royalty. We should be no different.
The solution to this problem is simple; restrict the use of campaign funds solely to campaign purposes.
...
I point out these abuses, in my view what are abuses, because they are certainly not what the average contributor intends for their funds to go to.
Perhaps the real question should be why McCain no longer believes that personal use of campaign funds ought to be a serious issue.
What Exactly Will the President Do?
In this Politico article, Andrew Glass details the powers that the framers of our Constitution granted our President and it contains a brief but good discussion of the powers that the President will and won't have. He writes,
He goes on to explain that for these reasons, the thing that we really need to be looking for in a President is someone with good judgment - someone who can assemble sources of solid counsel on to advise him on current and potential crisis situations, and someone who will be able to elect competent members to assist him in the executive functions.
This is exactly the reason why I believe that in the big scheme of things, this race is not about issues. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd admit that most of the issues that we get so worked up over today are very important - but important as they are, they are not issues that the next President has much power to alter or impact in law. That does not mean that the issues are irrelevant. On the contrary, a candidate's position on the issues - and his or her ability to articulate the position and rationale behind the position - tells us a lot about his or her ability to reason clearly through the issues.
Once in the White House, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain will have the capacity to raise or lower taxes. Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. The new president will need to negotiate with that body, which almost certainly will be under firm Democratic control.
Similarly, neither presidential candidate will have absolute power to appoint members of his Cabinet or other top agency heads, Supreme Court justices or other federal judges. To serve, all such nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.
The Constitution also gives the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties hammered out by the president and his entourage. Over the years, many treaties have died in committee or have been withdrawn by the president rather than face an ignoble defeat. There’s no reason to believe this would change in an Obama or McCain administration.
He goes on to explain that for these reasons, the thing that we really need to be looking for in a President is someone with good judgment - someone who can assemble sources of solid counsel on to advise him on current and potential crisis situations, and someone who will be able to elect competent members to assist him in the executive functions.
This is exactly the reason why I believe that in the big scheme of things, this race is not about issues. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd admit that most of the issues that we get so worked up over today are very important - but important as they are, they are not issues that the next President has much power to alter or impact in law. That does not mean that the issues are irrelevant. On the contrary, a candidate's position on the issues - and his or her ability to articulate the position and rationale behind the position - tells us a lot about his or her ability to reason clearly through the issues.
Obama's Campaign Finance Machine
Recently, we learned that Obama was able to raise $150 million in September alone and this article by Jeffrey Ressner at Politico describes how a large portion of that money came from California.
In this article from The Atlantic, Joshua Green describes how Obama was able to capitalize on the Silicon Valley and new technology to mobilize the general public in conducting the largest fundraising effort yet in American history.
Interestingly enough, the piece of campaign-finance legislation that paved the way for this new opportunity in political fundraising owes much of its success to McCain. Clearly, he did not foresee the effect it would have on the campaign finance landscape, however, and did not alter his finance strategies in anticipation of the change.
In this article from The Atlantic, Joshua Green describes how Obama was able to capitalize on the Silicon Valley and new technology to mobilize the general public in conducting the largest fundraising effort yet in American history.
In a sense, Obama represents a triumph of campaign-finance reform. He has not, of course, gotten the money out of politics, as many proponents of reform may have wished, and he will likely forgo public financing if he becomes the nominee. But he has realized the reformers’ other big goal of ending the system whereby a handful of rich donors control the political process. He has done this not by limiting money but by adding much, much more of it—democratizing the system by flooding it with so many new contributors that their combined effect dilutes the old guard to the point that it scarcely poses any threat. Gorenberg says he’s still often asked who the biggest fund-raisers are. He replies that it is no longer possible to tell. “Any one of them could wind up being huge,” he says, “because it no longer matters how big a check you can write; it matters how motivated you are to reach out to others.”
There is some irony in the fact that the architect of the most recent campaign-finance law also happens to be the Republican presidential nominee. John McCain likely views all that has happened with considerable trepidation. Contrary to the widespread assumption at the time the McCain-Feingold Act became law (The Atlantic published an article on the legislation titled “The Democratic Party Suicide Bill”), it has not hurt the Democratic Party. Neither has it clearly benefited Republicans; McCain in particular has little to show for it. He raised $15 million in March, only $4 million of it over the Internet. His small-donor base is virtually nonexistent. When challenged about his staunch support for the Iraq War, McCain likes to say that he’d be willing to sacrifice the White House for principle. Nobody asks about campaign-finance reform. But that, and not Iraq, may wind up being the principled stand that does him in.
Interestingly enough, the piece of campaign-finance legislation that paved the way for this new opportunity in political fundraising owes much of its success to McCain. Clearly, he did not foresee the effect it would have on the campaign finance landscape, however, and did not alter his finance strategies in anticipation of the change.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell's Statement on Supporting Obama
This was what Collin Powell had to say about supporting Obama. It is an extremely cogent statement and I think he makes a great point about the failure of the Republican party to demonstrate inclusiveness with regards to being Muslim in America.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Can the Next President Overturn Roe v. Wade?
We've already noted earlier that Palin has switched the focus of her attacks on Obama to his position on abortion today. This CNN article reports a bit more on her comments today.
In reading this CNN article, however, I just realized how her statements regarding Obama's position that he would uphold Roe v. Wade seems to contradict statements she made earlier to Couric as described on this site here. In that interview, she said,
The "those things" she was referring to above were Supreme Court decisions which she does not agree with or support. In today's speech in Pennsylvania, however, she says of Obama,
She implies here that the next president would have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade via 1) nominations of more conservative justices, 2) or via constitutional amendments.
I find it misleading to suggest that the next president would be able to do very much to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1) Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that the amendment process is in the hands of the legislative, not the executive branch.
Regarding the possibility of a constitutional amendment, Article V of the Constitution states,
This means that an amendment must be proposed either by Congress or a national convention requested by the states. As described here in Wikipedia, an amendment is deemed "proposed" by Congress when the proposal is agreed upon by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. In the case of a national convention, "two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments." Once proposed, the amendment can not be accepted until it has been ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Clearly, Article V indicates that the constitutional amendment process is largely controlled and dictated by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. It is not within the president's authority to personally institute a constitutional amendment.
2) The president may nominate justices but these nominations must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate and once nominated, the president does not have influence to dictate what these justices decide.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate justices, who can then be appointed with the "advice and consent of the Senate." So clearly, the president cannot himself appoint anyone to the Supreme Court but he can nominate people who can be appointed with the agreement of a majority of the Senate.
Once a justice is appointed, Article III dictates his or her tenure according to "good behavior," which basically means that the justice will serve for life unless impeached and convicted by a congressional vote. As such, the justice cannot be removed from tenure by the president and is under no obligation or pressure to decide cases in a way that the president would prefer.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, I think that the president has very little power to overturn Roe v. Wade, or any other Supreme Court decision for that matter.
With regards to the two points Palin describes, I think she was more correct during her interview with Couric and her current attacks appear misleading.
In reading this CNN article, however, I just realized how her statements regarding Obama's position that he would uphold Roe v. Wade seems to contradict statements she made earlier to Couric as described on this site here. In that interview, she said,
"But, you know, as a mayor, and then as a governor and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."
The "those things" she was referring to above were Supreme Court decisions which she does not agree with or support. In today's speech in Pennsylvania, however, she says of Obama,
"A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and that we need on this issue of life," she said. "Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life."
Obama opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." He did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
She implies here that the next president would have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade via 1) nominations of more conservative justices, 2) or via constitutional amendments.
I find it misleading to suggest that the next president would be able to do very much to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1) Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that the amendment process is in the hands of the legislative, not the executive branch.
Regarding the possibility of a constitutional amendment, Article V of the Constitution states,
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
This means that an amendment must be proposed either by Congress or a national convention requested by the states. As described here in Wikipedia, an amendment is deemed "proposed" by Congress when the proposal is agreed upon by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. In the case of a national convention, "two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments." Once proposed, the amendment can not be accepted until it has been ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Clearly, Article V indicates that the constitutional amendment process is largely controlled and dictated by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. It is not within the president's authority to personally institute a constitutional amendment.
2) The president may nominate justices but these nominations must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate and once nominated, the president does not have influence to dictate what these justices decide.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate justices, who can then be appointed with the "advice and consent of the Senate." So clearly, the president cannot himself appoint anyone to the Supreme Court but he can nominate people who can be appointed with the agreement of a majority of the Senate.
Once a justice is appointed, Article III dictates his or her tenure according to "good behavior," which basically means that the justice will serve for life unless impeached and convicted by a congressional vote. As such, the justice cannot be removed from tenure by the president and is under no obligation or pressure to decide cases in a way that the president would prefer.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, I think that the president has very little power to overturn Roe v. Wade, or any other Supreme Court decision for that matter.
With regards to the two points Palin describes, I think she was more correct during her interview with Couric and her current attacks appear misleading.
McCain Calls for Condemnation of Georgia Democrat's Comments
Rebecca Sinderbrand of CNN reports about comments that Rep. John Lewis, a democrat from Georgia, made today. In reference to attacks made by the McCain-Palin ticket this past week regarding Obama's associations with Ayers, Lewis said,
In response, McCain issued a statement saying,
McCain had previously named John Lewis as a person whom he respected and would seek advice from as president. The Obama campaign issued a statement soon after saying,
I agree with Obama's reaction and am glad that he took the opportunity to make the point that McCain's attacks have not been merely "legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions" as McCain claims above. Examples of what Obama is addressing in his response can be found on this site here, here, and here.
"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement.
"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama," wrote the Democrat.
In response, McCain issued a statement saying,
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Gov. Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale," he said in a Saturday afternoon statement released by his campaign.
"The notion that legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.
"I call on Sen. Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
McCain had previously named John Lewis as a person whom he respected and would seek advice from as president. The Obama campaign issued a statement soon after saying,
"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies," Burton said. "But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States 'pals around with terrorists.' "
I agree with Obama's reaction and am glad that he took the opportunity to make the point that McCain's attacks have not been merely "legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions" as McCain claims above. Examples of what Obama is addressing in his response can be found on this site here, here, and here.
Palin Denies Abuse of Authority
Michael Grynbaum of the New York Times also reports today that Palin's response to the Alaska Legislative Council's findings as discussed yesterday is that she has not done anything unlawful or unethical.
Well, we all have access to the report that the Alaska Legislative Council issued on the findings here and page 8 of the report clearly states the following in their first finding:
So the report clearly states that she violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Unless the Act is not deemed a part of their law, I would think that violation of the Act means that she did engage in unlawful activity. Additionally, violation of their Ethics Act seems to indicate that, at least according to Alaskan law, she also engaged in unethical behavior.
And as far as her statement below that there was "no abuse of authority in trying to get Officer Wooten fired," she seems to have admitted that she tried to get him fired while not addressing the real issue in the case.
Yes, the second finding of the report indicates that firing executive branch department heads is within her "proper and lawful" authority as governor of Alaska. But this finding is merely addressing her ability to fire department heads. However, it is clear from the first finding that there are circumstances under which use of authority can be abused, and the Alaska Legislative Council deemed the particular circumstances under which the firing occurred to be an abuse of her authority.
Palin's response seems to indicate that she either doesn't understand (or refuses to accept) her ethical responsibility and the circumstances under which she can appropriately use her authority as governor of Alaska.
Gov. Sarah Palin again insisted on Saturday that an investigation by Alaska lawmakers into the firing of her former brother-in-law found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part,” and added that “there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to
get Officer Wooten fired.”
Well, we all have access to the report that the Alaska Legislative Council issued on the findings here and page 8 of the report clearly states the following in their first finding:
Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
"The legislature affirms that each public officer hold office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
So the report clearly states that she violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Unless the Act is not deemed a part of their law, I would think that violation of the Act means that she did engage in unlawful activity. Additionally, violation of their Ethics Act seems to indicate that, at least according to Alaskan law, she also engaged in unethical behavior.
And as far as her statement below that there was "no abuse of authority in trying to get Officer Wooten fired," she seems to have admitted that she tried to get him fired while not addressing the real issue in the case.
A reporter noted that the report concluded that she had abused her power as governor. Ms. Palin replied, “There was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired. In fact, remember, Officer Wooten is still an Alaska state trooper, which is up to the commissioner and the personnel top brass in the Department of Public Safety that decides who is worthy of a badge and carryin’ a gun in the state of Alaska. If they think that Trooper Wooten is worthy of that, that’s their decision. I don’t micromanage my commissioners and ask them to hire or fire anyone. And thankfully the truth was revealed there in that report that showed there was no unlawful or unethical
activity on my part.”
Yes, the second finding of the report indicates that firing executive branch department heads is within her "proper and lawful" authority as governor of Alaska. But this finding is merely addressing her ability to fire department heads. However, it is clear from the first finding that there are circumstances under which use of authority can be abused, and the Alaska Legislative Council deemed the particular circumstances under which the firing occurred to be an abuse of her authority.
Palin's response seems to indicate that she either doesn't understand (or refuses to accept) her ethical responsibility and the circumstances under which she can appropriately use her authority as governor of Alaska.
Palin Respondes to McCain's Leadership on Obama Attacks
Michael Grynbaum of the New York Times' Caucus reported today that a day after McCain defended Obama as a "decent family man" and asked his supporters to be more respectful, Palin also toned down her own attacks against Obama with respect to Ayers. All week long, she had been attacking Obama about his association with Ayers at fund-raisers and campaign rallies but today in Pennsylvania, she failed to mention the association once.
Instead, she decided to focus on his stance on abortion and told supporters there that an Obama administration would result in an activist Supreme Court.
Regarding Obama's on statements on the type of people he would nominate to the court, the New York Times reported earlier,
I agree with her that by his own statements, it sounds like he's interested in supporting an activist court but I can't agree that this also means that he's interesting in "smothering the open and democratic debate" on any issue that arises before the court.
In fact, the only mention of Mr. Ayers came from a lone agitator in the otherwise temperate crowd, who shouted, “What about Ayers?” during a pause in the governor’s remarks. Ms. Palin did not
acknowledge him.
Instead, she decided to focus on his stance on abortion and told supporters there that an Obama administration would result in an activist Supreme Court.
“Let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes,” she said to a cheering crowd. “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and need on this issue of life.”
Regarding Obama's on statements on the type of people he would nominate to the court, the New York Times reported earlier,
SEN. OBAMA: I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy. But you're right, Wolf, I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and I -- when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the court. And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
And part of what I want to find in a Supreme Court justice -- and Joe's exactly right, sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
I agree with her that by his own statements, it sounds like he's interested in supporting an activist court but I can't agree that this also means that he's interesting in "smothering the open and democratic debate" on any issue that arises before the court.
Friday, October 10, 2008
McCain Takes Opportunity to Speak Truth
In a follow-up post to my post here, CNN's Ed Henry and Ed Hornick report that McCain has been taking his opportunities on the campaign trail recently. They write,
I could not agree more. Candidates need to take the lead in setting a tone of respect in their own campaigns and for their parties. But it's not enough just to make these statements. This responsibility ought to continue with the kind of attacks candidates attempt to make on their rivals and the kinds of ad campaigns that they endorse and launch. Finally, candidates also need to be responsible for taking the lead in making sure that the same standard of respect is upheld by their own running mates, spouses, and campaign representatives.
Later in Minnesota, a woman told McCain: "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab."
McCain shook his head and said, "No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man...[a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about."
...
McCain urged his supporters to be respectful of Obama.
"We want to fight and I will fight. But we will be respectful," he said. "I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him and I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are."
I could not agree more. Candidates need to take the lead in setting a tone of respect in their own campaigns and for their parties. But it's not enough just to make these statements. This responsibility ought to continue with the kind of attacks candidates attempt to make on their rivals and the kinds of ad campaigns that they endorse and launch. Finally, candidates also need to be responsible for taking the lead in making sure that the same standard of respect is upheld by their own running mates, spouses, and campaign representatives.
Some Conservatives Don't Like McCain's Mortgage Plan
After the second presidential debate of the 2008 election took place on Tuesday, some conservatives are voicing their concern over the mortgage plan McCain announced during the debate.
CNN's Alexander Mooney reports the following,
So what exactly did McCain propose? Mooney explains,
I found McCain's announcement of this plan very surprising. It's clearly not in line with conservative views that government interference ought to be limited and that individuals should be held primarily responsible for the consequences of their actions. It also seems to be a plan that alienates people who have been making payments on their mortgages and even seems to provide disincentive to those who would otherwise struggle to make those payments.
CNN's Alexander Mooney reports the following,
Matt Lewis, a contributing writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com, told CNN the plan only further riles conservatives upset with McCain's backing of the massive government bailout plan passed last week.
"Fundamentally, the problem is John McCain accepts a lot of liberal notions, unfortunately. There is somewhat of a populist streak," he said. "Most conservatives really did not like the bailout to begin with, and this was really kind of picking at the scab."
It's not just the plan conservatives are unhappy with, but how it was first unveiled as well -- out of the blue at Tuesday's town-hall debate during which Republicans were instead hoping McCain would present a spirited attack on what they view as Obama's overly liberal positions.
...
"He spent the entire debate assailing massive government spending -- while his featured proposal of the right was to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership retention at all costs," Malkin said.
It's a proposal that is fundamentally at odds with the conservative principle of individual responsibility, and is the latest in a string of public spats conservatives have had over the years and in this election with their party's standard bearer.
So what exactly did McCain propose? Mooney explains,
Under the plan, the government would buy up bad mortgage loans, converting them into low-interest, FHA-insured loans. To qualify, homeowners would have to be delinquent in their payments or be likely to fall behind in the near future.
They also would have to live in the home in question -- no investment properties would be eligible. They would need to have demonstrated their creditworthiness when they purchased the property by making a substantial down payment and by providing documentation of their income and other assets.
McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said on a conference call Wednesday that the McCain plan could start quickly because the authority was granted by last week's passage of the $700 billion economic bailout bill. The plan could also fall under the umbrella of the Hope for Homeowners program authorized by the housing rescue bill passed in July and the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But the plan, which the McCain campaign appeared to be finalizing even after the candidate announced it, significantly departs from the Arizona senator's original proposal and has left many conservatives scratching their heads:
"The original plan relied on lenders taking the hit," Holtz-Eakin said on the conference call. "This bypasses that step."
Instead, the estimated $300 billion tab essentially gets transferred to taxpayers, among the funding already provided by the bailout bill -- a proposal that may rile not only fiscal conservatives, but also struggling homeowners who have worked to keep up their mortgage payments.
"The guy who works two jobs and struggles to actually pay his mortgage is penalized. He would be better off under this plan to just quit paying his mortgage," Lewis said. "And this fundamentally goes against a lot of conservative principles and individual responsibility."
I found McCain's announcement of this plan very surprising. It's clearly not in line with conservative views that government interference ought to be limited and that individuals should be held primarily responsible for the consequences of their actions. It also seems to be a plan that alienates people who have been making payments on their mortgages and even seems to provide disincentive to those who would otherwise struggle to make those payments.
Alaska Legislative Council Finds Palin Abused Power
In a report issued by the Alaska Legislative Council today, Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower reports that the Legislative Council found that Sarah Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act writing,
The report further states,
You can find a copy of the original report from the Alaska Legislative Council here.
Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethic Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
"The legislature affirms that each public officer hold office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
The report further states,
Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda...
You can find a copy of the original report from the Alaska Legislative Council here.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Opportunity to Speak Truth
The New Republic's Jason Zengerle writes an interesting piece here about McCain's missed opportunity during a campaign rally in New Mexico.
Jason Zengerle goes on to say that even though we don't expect such behavior from politicians who are primarily interested in promoting themselves and the prospects of their party, Rudy Giuliani actually did do something very similar during a campaign event in Maryland in 2006.
Zengerle's perspective is interesting for several reasons. First, he makes the point that politicians have opportunities to distinguish themselves when they take a stand for truth and decide to go out of their way to make sure that what is right is done. He really takes this point one step further and suggests that inaction, though expected, is not right. And that failure to do what is right, is at best, a huge opportunity missed.
But even more interesting is the implicit suggestion that politicians, as representatives and leaders of their party, have a responsibility to speak out to their supporters and help ensure that people focus on the relevant issues, not the mudslinging.
In case you haven't seen it, watch this video from a campaign rally McCain held yesterday in New Mexico. After McCain asks, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" someone in the crowd yells "Terrorist!" For a second there, McCain looks slightly taken aback, but then he pushes aside whatever qualms he might have and simply plunges ahead with the rest of his speech.
What if McCain, instead of continuing with his speech, had stopped cold, looked the audience member in the eye, and gently but sternly rebuked him with a homily about how we're all Americans and the problem with Obama isn't that he's a bad man or a terrorist, but that he's wrong on the issues? Sure, it would have been hypocritical--it's no coincidence McCain's supporters think Obama's a terrorist when you've got Sarah Palin accusing him of palling around with one--but it would have been dramatic and mavericky as hell, too. It would have been the lead campaign story on all the networks, it would have become a YouTube sensation, and it would have burnished McCain's badly tarnished brand as an atypically honorable and different sort of politician.
Jason Zengerle goes on to say that even though we don't expect such behavior from politicians who are primarily interested in promoting themselves and the prospects of their party, Rudy Giuliani actually did do something very similar during a campaign event in Maryland in 2006.
Zengerle's perspective is interesting for several reasons. First, he makes the point that politicians have opportunities to distinguish themselves when they take a stand for truth and decide to go out of their way to make sure that what is right is done. He really takes this point one step further and suggests that inaction, though expected, is not right. And that failure to do what is right, is at best, a huge opportunity missed.
But even more interesting is the implicit suggestion that politicians, as representatives and leaders of their party, have a responsibility to speak out to their supporters and help ensure that people focus on the relevant issues, not the mudslinging.
Petraeus Comments More in Line with Obama
During the last two presidential debates, McCain spent considerable time pointing out his belief that Obama's stance on pursuing diplomatic talks with America's foreign enemies is dangerous. In support of his belief, he points to his own war experience and comments supposedly made by General Petraeus, who is respected and admired for his success in overseeing the military surge in Iraq.
Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent reports that recent comments by Petraeus, however, actually better support Obama's policy stances than McCain's.
Regarding the effectiveness of another surge in Afghanistan, Ackerman reported the following,
Regarding the effectiveness of diplomatic talks favored by Obama and derided by McCain, Ackerman reports the following,
Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal summarizes the implications of the Petraeus comments succinctly when he stated, "...General Petraeus completely contradicted many of John McCain's arguments about Iraq and Afghanistan. This wouldn't be so important if McCain didn't consistently cite Petraeus agreeing with him as a justification or his policies. To a lesser extent McCain is using the same tactic that President Bush used in 2007 trying to take his own foreign policy philosophy and ascribe to a General who is seen as more credible on these issues. So when Petraeus contradicts him on Afghanistan, Pakistan and how we should deal with our enemies it's a big deal."
Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent reports that recent comments by Petraeus, however, actually better support Obama's policy stances than McCain's.
Regarding the effectiveness of another surge in Afghanistan, Ackerman reported the following,
Unbidden, Petraeus discussed whether his strategy in Iraq — protecting the population while cleaving apart the insurgency through reconciliation efforts to crush the remaining hard-core enemies — could also work in Afghanistan. The question has particular salience as Petraeus takes over U.S. Central Command, which will put him at the helm of all U.S. troops in the Middle East and South Asia, thereby giving him a large role in the Afghanistan war.
“Some of the concepts used in Iraq are transplantable [to Afghanistan] while others perhaps are not,” he said. “Every situation is unique.”
Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if they are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”
In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected the idea of replicating the blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “The word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “There are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan,” he added.
McCain, however, has argued that the Afghanistan war is ripe for a direct replication of Petraeus’ Iraq strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency. “Sen. Obama calls for more troops,” McCain said in the Sept. 26 debate, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”
McCain qualified that statement in Tuesday’s debate, but clung to it while discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Gen. Petraeus had a strategy,” McCain said, “the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.”
Regarding the effectiveness of diplomatic talks favored by Obama and derided by McCain, Ackerman reports the following,
Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.
All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”
McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.
Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal summarizes the implications of the Petraeus comments succinctly when he stated, "...General Petraeus completely contradicted many of John McCain's arguments about Iraq and Afghanistan. This wouldn't be so important if McCain didn't consistently cite Petraeus agreeing with him as a justification or his policies. To a lesser extent McCain is using the same tactic that President Bush used in 2007 trying to take his own foreign policy philosophy and ascribe to a General who is seen as more credible on these issues. So when Petraeus contradicts him on Afghanistan, Pakistan and how we should deal with our enemies it's a big deal."
After $85 Billion, AIG Claims to Need Another $37.8 Billion
On Thursday, the New York Federal Reserve announced that it would give AIG another $37.8 billion in exchange for investment-grade securities which were sold to investment companies who now want their money back. The $37.8 billion comes on the heels of $85 billion which was lent to AIG last month.
AIG's request for additional funding comes at the same time as some harsh criticisms that executives at the company failed to exercise appropriate judgment in spending some of the $85 billion they received last month.
Henry Waxman, a representative from California and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that within a week of receiving the $85 billion loan, AIG executives took a week-long retreat at a St. Regis Resort, during which invoices to the hotel totaled $440,000, including spa expenses of $23,000. While figures may seem like chump change when compared with the $61 billion the company has already drawn down from the $85 billion loan in the last month, Waxman makes the point that aggressive measures need to be taken to address budgetary changes in times of economic distress, and lavish spending is not responsible behavior with bailout money. Additionally, he makes the point that had the company's executives realized the extent of their own responsibility in AIG's current economic woes, they would not have been so eager to spend borrowed money frivolously.
An AIG spokesman noted that the retreat had been planned a year in advance for their top-performing sales persons. For a company which faced bankruptcy just a month ago, however, the retreat only seemed to reflect a flippant attitude towards current economic woes.
AIG CEOs, Martin Sullivan and Robert Willumstad, refused to take responsibility for the company's circumstances. Instead, they blamed "complex accounting rules that forced the company to take on billions of dollars in losses." Personally, I don't understand how accounting rules can be to blame. Accounting rules merely elucidate the reality of a company's financial position for the otherwise uninformed public. While the company may be in a better financial position on paper if they did not have to adhere to accounting reporting requirements, the reality of their financial position in the markets remains the same. As 'SEC Chief Accountant Lynn E. Turner said at the CEO’s defense during the hearing, arguing that blaming the accounting rules for the losses is like “blaming the thermometer…for a fever.”'
AIG's story highlights the complexity of the issues involved in determining a solution to the financial sector crisis. Among the many issues to be addressed:
Who is and should be responsible for what happened and what should be happening in each of these companies and the markets in general? And how should they be made to be accountable for their responsibilities in the financial markets?
AIG's request for additional funding comes at the same time as some harsh criticisms that executives at the company failed to exercise appropriate judgment in spending some of the $85 billion they received last month.
Henry Waxman, a representative from California and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that within a week of receiving the $85 billion loan, AIG executives took a week-long retreat at a St. Regis Resort, during which invoices to the hotel totaled $440,000, including spa expenses of $23,000. While figures may seem like chump change when compared with the $61 billion the company has already drawn down from the $85 billion loan in the last month, Waxman makes the point that aggressive measures need to be taken to address budgetary changes in times of economic distress, and lavish spending is not responsible behavior with bailout money. Additionally, he makes the point that had the company's executives realized the extent of their own responsibility in AIG's current economic woes, they would not have been so eager to spend borrowed money frivolously.
An AIG spokesman noted that the retreat had been planned a year in advance for their top-performing sales persons. For a company which faced bankruptcy just a month ago, however, the retreat only seemed to reflect a flippant attitude towards current economic woes.
AIG CEOs, Martin Sullivan and Robert Willumstad, refused to take responsibility for the company's circumstances. Instead, they blamed "complex accounting rules that forced the company to take on billions of dollars in losses." Personally, I don't understand how accounting rules can be to blame. Accounting rules merely elucidate the reality of a company's financial position for the otherwise uninformed public. While the company may be in a better financial position on paper if they did not have to adhere to accounting reporting requirements, the reality of their financial position in the markets remains the same. As 'SEC Chief Accountant Lynn E. Turner said at the CEO’s defense during the hearing, arguing that blaming the accounting rules for the losses is like “blaming the thermometer…for a fever.”'
AIG's story highlights the complexity of the issues involved in determining a solution to the financial sector crisis. Among the many issues to be addressed:
Who is and should be responsible for what happened and what should be happening in each of these companies and the markets in general? And how should they be made to be accountable for their responsibilities in the financial markets?
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Facts on McCain's Albuquerque Speech
In his speech today from Albuquerque, McCain attacked Obama on a number of issues but many of his points have already been shown to be untrue, exaggerated, or misleading. Larry Rohter of the New York Times explains the facts on his statements.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Palin's Emotional Intelligence
David Kusnet of The New Republic writes about the power of Palin's Emotional Intelligence - that is her ability to connect with people in a way that makes emotional sense, even if it doesn't quite make sense logically when you think about what exactly she's saying.
I found two of his points particularly interesting.
1) "Often her remarks were rambling and disjointed... But people don't parse debate transcripts, they watch the show on their TV screens. Palin looked and sounded friendly, funny, and confident..."
This is so true. Try reading a transcript of her interviews and her debate responses. It's frequently difficult to figure out exactly what she's saying if you haven't already seen the response on TV. If you've watched her give the response, you're able to filter out a lot of the "filler" in her responses and understand, at least emotionally, the general direction she's trying to make her point in.
2) When Biden spoke emotionally of his own experience has a single parent, 'for once, Palin did not respond as a regular human being would. Not even offering Biden a sympathetic glance while he was speaking, she went on to say yet again that McCain is "a maverick."'
I remember thinking that her response was extremely odd. Especially for someone whose appeal is almost entirely predicated on the assumption that she understands and identifies with the average American, her lack of comment and quickness to change the subject cheerily back to McCain's maverick qualities seemed to display an unnatural coldness.
Kusnet adds that "those who watched the debate from start to finish may have wondered whether Palin really is as warmhearted as she appeared."
I found two of his points particularly interesting.
1) "Often her remarks were rambling and disjointed... But people don't parse debate transcripts, they watch the show on their TV screens. Palin looked and sounded friendly, funny, and confident..."
This is so true. Try reading a transcript of her interviews and her debate responses. It's frequently difficult to figure out exactly what she's saying if you haven't already seen the response on TV. If you've watched her give the response, you're able to filter out a lot of the "filler" in her responses and understand, at least emotionally, the general direction she's trying to make her point in.
2) When Biden spoke emotionally of his own experience has a single parent, 'for once, Palin did not respond as a regular human being would. Not even offering Biden a sympathetic glance while he was speaking, she went on to say yet again that McCain is "a maverick."'
I remember thinking that her response was extremely odd. Especially for someone whose appeal is almost entirely predicated on the assumption that she understands and identifies with the average American, her lack of comment and quickness to change the subject cheerily back to McCain's maverick qualities seemed to display an unnatural coldness.
Kusnet adds that "those who watched the debate from start to finish may have wondered whether Palin really is as warmhearted as she appeared."
The High-Minded Campaign Takes a Turn
Nate Silver of The New Republic writes a great article on Palin's recent personal attacks on Obama.
It is a sad denouement for what was one to be a high-minded campaign focused around themes of honor and reform, themes that were resuscitated briefly during the Republican Convention, possibly accompanied by McCain's taking a one-term pledge. It is also, however, Mr. McCain's strategists would seem to have concluded, their only remaining hope.
...
Ultimately, however, the fact that McCain is resorting to these sorts of attacks are an indication of just how much his brand has been damaged. They certainly aren't likely to help him to repair it.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
McCain-Palin Attempt to Shift Focus Away from Economy
While sources indicate that McCain is falling behind Obama in the polls, the McCain-Palin campaign is attempting to distract Americans from thinking about the struggling economy. Instead, they're attempting to question Obama's connections with Bill Ayers again.
As this CNN article explains,
The question of Obama's connections with Bill Ayers, whom CNN notes was engaged in Anti-American terrorist activity in the 1970's and now resides in Obama's neighborhood, was previously discussed in a New York Times article but the article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."
Additionally, CNN notes that,
Personally, I note two things about McCain's decision to launch unfounded and untrue claims on Obama's personal character in an attempt to shift focus from the economy:
1) This action seems to contrast starkly with his declared motives for suspending his campaign earlier to work out a solution for the economic crisis and attempt to pass the $700 billion bailout. Clearly, he is more interested now in wasting time in perpetrating misleading information about Obama than in furthering bipartisan efforts to address our economic issues.
2) Palin talks a lot about being an "outsider" from Washington and the advantage that gives her in addressing the issues that really matter to American voters. She also talks a lot about doing what is right and ethical. Her willingness to perpetrate lies about Obama says that she is either not as concerned with doing what is right as she says she is, or she is all too willing to believe whatever her advisers tell her without doing a little bit of work on her part to figure out whether or not the advice is good and credible. Neither of these bodes well for her ability to bring about significant reform as she and McCain have promised.
As this CNN article explains,
With Obama rising in polls while the country struggles in the grip of a financial crisis, Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign decided to shift attention away from the troubled economy and onto issues of his opponent's character, judgment and personal associations, the Washington Post reported.
"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss strategy. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here."
The question of Obama's connections with Bill Ayers, whom CNN notes was engaged in Anti-American terrorist activity in the 1970's and now resides in Obama's neighborhood, was previously discussed in a New York Times article but the article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."
Additionally, CNN notes that,
Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.
Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan called Palin's comments "offensive" and "not surprising given the McCain campaign's statement this morning that they would be launching Swift Boat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation's economic ills."
Personally, I note two things about McCain's decision to launch unfounded and untrue claims on Obama's personal character in an attempt to shift focus from the economy:
1) This action seems to contrast starkly with his declared motives for suspending his campaign earlier to work out a solution for the economic crisis and attempt to pass the $700 billion bailout. Clearly, he is more interested now in wasting time in perpetrating misleading information about Obama than in furthering bipartisan efforts to address our economic issues.
2) Palin talks a lot about being an "outsider" from Washington and the advantage that gives her in addressing the issues that really matter to American voters. She also talks a lot about doing what is right and ethical. Her willingness to perpetrate lies about Obama says that she is either not as concerned with doing what is right as she says she is, or she is all too willing to believe whatever her advisers tell her without doing a little bit of work on her part to figure out whether or not the advice is good and credible. Neither of these bodes well for her ability to bring about significant reform as she and McCain have promised.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Zuckerman on an Alternative to the Bailout Plan
In this article from Real Clear Politics, Mort Zuckerman explains that the current economic crisis is largely a result of irresponsible housing and credit transactions from just a couple years ago.
Zuckerman continues to say that the current bailout plan doesn't really address the problem fairly. Instead, he proposes an alternative.
This is an interesting alternative to the current bailout plan. It would be interesting to see more arguments about how such a plan would play out.
People with no credit score were enabled to buy homes with no money down and to buy ridiculously overpriced homes. How come? Congressmen won votes pressing for "affordable housing" for everyone and community organizers were eager to get on the bandwagon. Congressmen of both parties protected the two biggest mortgage agencies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, from having to find more capital. Everyone assumed houses would go on appreciating way beyond the value of any collateral, so that somehow it would all work out.
Zuckerman continues to say that the current bailout plan doesn't really address the problem fairly. Instead, he proposes an alternative.
The Treasury Department's solution to this crisis had many, many problems. The idea was to buy depressed mortgage securities and other illiquid, even toxic assets. But how to figure out what to pay for assets that are so complex, so uncertain in value, and when many of them remain overvalued on the books of financial institutions?
...
But stabilizing the financial markets is imperative. The real issue is who should bear the cost. It should not be the taxpayer.
There's an alternative to buying the bad loans and investments. This would be to invest public funds in these financial institutions through the purchase of prior preferred stock by the government, which would put them senior to all shareholders. Preferred shareholders, namely the public, would be the last to realize losses and the first to receive gains. This would still recapitalize the banking system and give them time to dispose of their bad assets in an orderly fashion.
It's this same approach that Warren Buffett adopted when he invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs. So why should the public get a worse deal when they are asked to use their dollars to be invested in lesser quality financial institutions, which have a higher risk?
The first description of the plan as a bailout was right; it would bail them out of their mistakes and pay a reward for failure. If there were profits to be made from spending money to shore up the banking system, it should be made by the taxpayers, and not just by the political and financial elites who created this mess.
This is an interesting alternative to the current bailout plan. It would be interesting to see more arguments about how such a plan would play out.
Scheiber's Reaction to the VP Debate
Noam Scheiber has a great analysis of the VP debate in this New Republic article.
No question Palin helped herself tonight, but that's only because she had so far to climb. If you're grading on anything other than a massive curve, Biden wins hands down.
The beauty of Biden is that he can go blow for blow with Palin on ordinary Joe-ness, then actually know what he's talking about when he answers questions. Palin talks about the mean streets of Wasilla, Biden talks about the mean streets of Scranton. Palin talks about her son in Iraq, Biden talks about his son in Iraq. Palin talks about being the mother of a child with special needs, Biden talks about being a widower with two badly injured boys. Every time you thought she might claim an emotional advantage, Biden evened the emotional score.
...
My completely impressionistic take on Palin's performance tonight is that it mirrorred her campaign performance so far (if not quite as dramatically): When Palin started off, you thought, "Wow, she seems so fresh--so human and easy to relate to. How can we compete with that?" Then, as the debate wore on, you thought, "Hmm, okay, she still seems human, but not quite what I'm looking for in a vice president." And, by the end, as the vacuous answers piled up, it was more like, "Good God, keep this woman away from the Oval Office." Which is the story of the last month, too.
Palin just isn't a candidate who wears well over any extended period of time, whether it's a 90-minute debate or a 60-day campaign. The reason is that she only has one mode: human and relateable. That's fine when the topic is middle-class pain. But there are whole classes of issues--foreign policy chief among them--where human and relateable aren't what you're looking for, even if you're an uninformed voter.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Transcript of 2008 VP Debate
Michelle Obama Discovers Her Family Tree in America
This article from the Washington Post details how "Michelle Obama's great-great-grandfather, Jim Robinson, worked as a slave on the Friendfield Plantation in Georgetown, S.C. Many of the slave quarters on the plantation still stand untouched and alone on the property."
What a momentous time in history this has the potential to be. Shailagh Murray writes, "While Barack Obama's provenance -- his black Kenyan father, white Kansas-born mother and Hawaiian childhood -- has been celebrated as a uniquely American example of multicultural identity, Michelle Obama's family history -- from slavery to Reconstruction to the Great Migration north -- connects her to the essence of the African American experience."
What a momentous time in history this has the potential to be. Shailagh Murray writes, "While Barack Obama's provenance -- his black Kenyan father, white Kansas-born mother and Hawaiian childhood -- has been celebrated as a uniquely American example of multicultural identity, Michelle Obama's family history -- from slavery to Reconstruction to the Great Migration north -- connects her to the essence of the African American experience."
Biden Wins Debate, Palin Exceeds Expectations
According to a survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, viewers of tonight's VP debate believe that Biden did the better job in the debate but found Palin to be more likable.
Yes, I agree she exceeded expectations; in fact, the bar was set so low for her after the Couric interviews that it would have been very difficult for her not to exceed expectations. It's clear, however, that although Palin is a very polished public speaker and has a gift for connecting with her audience, she still does not have fluency or grasp over the issues at stake and she does not really understand McCain's (or the Bush administration's) positions on many issues. I was not impressed with her lack of response especially in the second half of the debate; it was obvious that she had not considered many of those issues before and was not able to offer an intelligent answer about policy on Israel, economic issues, and questions regarding McCain's voting record and the plans of the Bush administration. She frequently talked at length about her own voting record in Alaska as filler for her answers regarding those topics.
Biden, on the other hand, demonstrated an obvious fluency on all the topics, but especially on foreign policy issues, and proved himself to be a clear and experienced thinker who understands the issues Americans are concerned with, and also understands, and is ready to address, the economic and international issues that the next president will face. I was very impressed with his depth of understanding - not only of the underlying issues and what the Obama/Biden position is on these issues, but also of the voting records and the reasons for Obama and McCain's votes.
Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Biden did the best job in Thursday night's debate, while 36 percent thought Palin did the best job.
But respondents said the folksy Palin was more likable, scoring 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent.
Both candidates exceeded expectations — 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.
But on the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified.
Yes, I agree she exceeded expectations; in fact, the bar was set so low for her after the Couric interviews that it would have been very difficult for her not to exceed expectations. It's clear, however, that although Palin is a very polished public speaker and has a gift for connecting with her audience, she still does not have fluency or grasp over the issues at stake and she does not really understand McCain's (or the Bush administration's) positions on many issues. I was not impressed with her lack of response especially in the second half of the debate; it was obvious that she had not considered many of those issues before and was not able to offer an intelligent answer about policy on Israel, economic issues, and questions regarding McCain's voting record and the plans of the Bush administration. She frequently talked at length about her own voting record in Alaska as filler for her answers regarding those topics.
Biden, on the other hand, demonstrated an obvious fluency on all the topics, but especially on foreign policy issues, and proved himself to be a clear and experienced thinker who understands the issues Americans are concerned with, and also understands, and is ready to address, the economic and international issues that the next president will face. I was very impressed with his depth of understanding - not only of the underlying issues and what the Obama/Biden position is on these issues, but also of the voting records and the reasons for Obama and McCain's votes.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Palin and National Security
This is a great article by Patrick Barry of Democracy Arsenal regarding national security issues in which Palin must be able to demonstrate competency.
Below are his five points:
I would add that these 5 points are not limited to Palin but should be demonstrated by any candidate seeking to become VP or President of the United States.
Below are his five points:
1. KNOWLEDGE: Governor Palin must demonstrate the knowledge necessary to be Commander-in-Chief.
Governor Palin has repeatedly cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as a qualification for being Commander-in-Chief. This despite the fact that Russia isn’t even in the top twenty countries that trade with Alaska and that Moscow is actually closer to Maine than Alaska. Moreover, when asked about the Bush Doctrine, Palin did not recognize the argument over preemption that dominated American politics and foreign policy circles for years. She did not even obtain a passport until last year and has shown little interest in international affairs.
2. PAKISTAN: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin position on eliminating Al Qaeda’s safe-haven in Pakistan.
Pakistan is one of the most critical issues currently facing our country. Our intelligence community and the Pentagon believe that the safe haven on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border represents the most likely source of another attack on the United States. Yet incredibly, Governor Palin’s position on this issue appears to be at odds with John McCain’s. While he has criticized Barack Obama for arguing that the U.S. should take direct action against high value terrorist targets inside Northwest Pakistan, Governor Palin has made remarks suggesting she supports such measures.
3. IRAN: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin strategy for dealing with Iran.
Governor Palin has called Barack Obama’s proposal to engage in diplomacy with Iran without preconditions “dangerous” and “naïve.” Yet, it is almost the exact same position as the one taken by one of her own campaign’s advisors – Henry Kissinger. Moreover, Palin has made public statements that would implicitly give Israel a green light to attack Iran – even though such an action would have serious national security implications for the United States and the Bush administration has reportedly opposed such a move.
4. RUSSIA: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin position on Russia.
Instead of carefully avoiding hypotheticals and inflammatory language, Governor Palin recklessly speculated about a possible war with Russia – the world’s second largest nuclear power. She must clarify her ticket’s positions on Georgia joining NATO and the potential for war with Russia over South Ossetia.
5. VISION: Governor Palin must articulate what her vision is for American foreign policy
Governor Palin has said little about her own foreign policy views and philosophy. In an interview with Katie Couric she seemed to take a position similar to the Neoconservatives and George Bush’s first term and early second term that we should be aggressively spreading democracy as the main goal of U.S. foreign policy and that this type of approach would help eliminate terrorism. She must expand on this view and give a fuller description of her general approach to national security.
I would add that these 5 points are not limited to Palin but should be demonstrated by any candidate seeking to become VP or President of the United States.
General Petraeus' Comments Contradict McCain's Policy
In this article, Patrick Barry writes about how General Petraeus' comments on insurgents in Afghanistan contradicts McCain's stance that the surge which he believes was so successful in Iraq ought to be repeated in Afghanistan.
Barry concludes saying, "A key criteria for assessing both candidates' fitness for commander-in-chief is whether they have a strategy that can arrest this devolving problem. Barack Obama has committed himself time and again to a comprehensive plan for restoring a modicum of stability to Afghanistan, one that depends on a re-deployment from Iraq. General Petraeus too, in his new role as head of Central Command, appears to have quickly broadened his strategic view, and has begun to pay Afghanistan its due attention. But John McCain is stuck, insisting on looking at this national security crisis through the prism of Iraq, repeating the same fixation, the same insistence, the same failures that have marked the last eight years."
Barry's article is particularly interesting because he makes the point that even for all of McCain's experience (and it is evident that he has had more experience fighting wars than Obama), he may still not be the more qualified person to become Commander in Chief because of his insistence on a particular strategy without due attention to the unique requirements and circumstances of a new situation.
Barry concludes saying, "A key criteria for assessing both candidates' fitness for commander-in-chief is whether they have a strategy that can arrest this devolving problem. Barack Obama has committed himself time and again to a comprehensive plan for restoring a modicum of stability to Afghanistan, one that depends on a re-deployment from Iraq. General Petraeus too, in his new role as head of Central Command, appears to have quickly broadened his strategic view, and has begun to pay Afghanistan its due attention. But John McCain is stuck, insisting on looking at this national security crisis through the prism of Iraq, repeating the same fixation, the same insistence, the same failures that have marked the last eight years."
Barry's article is particularly interesting because he makes the point that even for all of McCain's experience (and it is evident that he has had more experience fighting wars than Obama), he may still not be the more qualified person to become Commander in Chief because of his insistence on a particular strategy without due attention to the unique requirements and circumstances of a new situation.
Obama's Senate Speech on the Bailout
Obama had this to say on the Senate floor about the bailout today:
I have heard critics of the bailout say that the bailout is not necessary right now and that we should let banks suffer for the poor investment decisions they made. What these people fail to realize, however, that the purpose of the bailout is not to rescue financial institutions from the consequences of their irresponsible choices. Nor is the bailout an opportunity to conveniently forget about the actions which should have been taken to prevent the current economic situation. Instead, the fact is that the activity of these financial institutions has far-reaching implications on numerous aspects of our economy and the bailout is about protecting the American public from the innumerable rippling consequences of a massive failure on Wall Street.
See the entirety of his speech here.
We're in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions across this country are afraid to lend money. And if all that meant was the failure of a few banks in New York, that would be one thing. But that's not what it means. What it means is, if we don't act, it will be harder for Americans to get a mortgage for their home or loans they need to buy a car or send their children to college. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open a new factory or make payroll for their workers. And if they can't make payroll on Friday, then workers are laid off on Monday. And if workers are laid off on Monday, then they can't pay their bills or pay back their loans to somebody else. And it will go on and on and on, rippling through the entire economy. Potentially we could see thousands of businesses close, millions of jobs could be lost, and a long and painful recession could follow. In other words, this is not just a Wall Street crisis, it's an American crisis.
I have heard critics of the bailout say that the bailout is not necessary right now and that we should let banks suffer for the poor investment decisions they made. What these people fail to realize, however, that the purpose of the bailout is not to rescue financial institutions from the consequences of their irresponsible choices. Nor is the bailout an opportunity to conveniently forget about the actions which should have been taken to prevent the current economic situation. Instead, the fact is that the activity of these financial institutions has far-reaching implications on numerous aspects of our economy and the bailout is about protecting the American public from the innumerable rippling consequences of a massive failure on Wall Street.
See the entirety of his speech here.
Joe Biden's Challenge on Thursday's VP Debate
In this interview, Andrew Halcro, former Alaska state representative and gubenatorial candidate, has the following to say of what it's like to debate with Sarah Palin.
This is exactly what McCain was counting on when he picked Palin as his running mate. He was counting on her ability to connect with the general American public. He was counting on us to feel that she is somehow just like us.
Below is another example of how Andrew Halcro's analysis is evident in her response to Couric's question.
On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.
While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.
Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.
In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.
And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.
This is exactly what McCain was counting on when he picked Palin as his running mate. He was counting on her ability to connect with the general American public. He was counting on us to feel that she is somehow just like us.
Below is another example of how Andrew Halcro's analysis is evident in her response to Couric's question.
Palin on Supreme Court Decisions
In yet another interview with Katie Couric, Palin demonstrates her lack of familiarity with Supreme Court decisions and the basis for those decisions. Many critics have focused on her inability to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade but I'd like to highlight two other observations I made from the interview.
1) She either doesn't understand the Roe v. Wade decision or else she doesn't understand the possible implications of a Constitutional right to privacy.
She indicated that she believes in an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution but insists that she disagrees with Roe v. Wade. The decision in Roe v. Wade was based on the right to privacy as interpreted from the 14th amendment. The fact that she fails to offer an explanation of why a right to privacy should not be applicable in the Roe v. Wade decision indicates that either she does not understand the underlying arguments of Roe v. Wade or she has not thought about the far-reaching implications of an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.
2) She does not believe that she would have influence to overturn Roe v. Wade if she were to become Vice President.
In making the following statement to Couric regarding Supreme Court decisions with she disagrees, Palin's position on her ability to overturn such cases is clear.
She says, "But, you know, as a mayor, and then as a governor and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."
Monday, September 29, 2008
Biden's Response to First Presidential Debate
Palin's staff did not agree to an interview regarding her response to the debate so her reactions are not currently available for comparison.
Analysis of First Presidential Debates
On Saturday, Time Magazine had the following to say about John McCain and Barack Obama's performances in the first presidential debate of the 2008 election.
Letter grading aside, I agree with Mark Halperin's analysis (and brief summary) of each candidate's substance, style, and overall performance.
I don't think either candidate particularly outshone the other but the intended topic of the debate, foreign policy, is widely heralded as McCain's strength, and an area in which his experience far exceeds that of Obama's. I don't think that McCain effectively demonstrated superior command of foreign policy issues while Obama's preparation and grasp of the issues was clear. I don't think the debate altered much in public opinion regarding McCain but it gave Obama the opportunity to prove to the public that he does understand foreign policy issues, and that he is not as inexperienced or incapable of leading as Republicans have been attempting to depict him.
Letter grading aside, I agree with Mark Halperin's analysis (and brief summary) of each candidate's substance, style, and overall performance.
I don't think either candidate particularly outshone the other but the intended topic of the debate, foreign policy, is widely heralded as McCain's strength, and an area in which his experience far exceeds that of Obama's. I don't think that McCain effectively demonstrated superior command of foreign policy issues while Obama's preparation and grasp of the issues was clear. I don't think the debate altered much in public opinion regarding McCain but it gave Obama the opportunity to prove to the public that he does understand foreign policy issues, and that he is not as inexperienced or incapable of leading as Republicans have been attempting to depict him.
McCain's VP Pick was Irresponsible
CNN's foreign affairs analyst, Fareed Zakaria, writes of McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate, "...I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance."
Read the rest of his interview with CNN regarding his commentary in Newsweek here.
Read the rest of his interview with CNN regarding his commentary in Newsweek here.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Out of Her League
In this article from The Caucus, Kate Phillips summarizes what I think many have been thinking about Palin this past week.
She writes, 'So, does Governor Palin have it? Mr. Brooks wrote: “Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”'
She writes, 'So, does Governor Palin have it? Mr. Brooks wrote: “Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”'
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Real Question About Palin
Many of the opinions I've heard about Palin seem to focus on how she's very likable, very down to earth, easy to identify with, and takes a stand on her beliefs. These are all wonderful things but they're not sufficient in determining the real question at stake: Is she an appropriate candidate for Vice President of the United States?
Lawrence Lessig does a great job of respectfully and thoughtfully comparing Palin's experience to that of former vice presidents of the US, and detailing why we should care about her experience in this video.
Lawrence Lessig does a great job of respectfully and thoughtfully comparing Palin's experience to that of former vice presidents of the US, and detailing why we should care about her experience in this video.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
International Comparison on Health Care
This article from NPR on France's health care coverage for new mothers asserts that France spends significantly less than the United States does on health care per capita but is able to provide better, and more universal, health services. NPR further offers a high-level international comparison between various health care systems which again illustrates the point that other countries in the world appear to be offering more efficient health care services than we have in the United States.
But why does health care cost so much more per capita in America? Is it because of a higher percentage of “diseased” patients in the population? Or are the higher health care costs buried somewhere in more expensive treatments or profits to medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies? In “Taking the Measure of Health Care in America,” NPR reporter Joe Neel writes,
According to Joe Neel, NPR's research indicates that higher costs in America are also due to higher expectations for treatment and he writes,
An article from the NY Times in November 2007 on “The High Cost of Health Care,” highlights the reason for America's higher health care costs in greater detail.
The article also lists several possible remedies such as increased research regarding which treatments would work best for each patient so that less time and money is wasted on unnecessary (and often harmful) treatments, increased utilization of information technologies, more effort spent on preventative care, Medicare-negotiated drug prices, and less pay to providers. Of particular interest to me was the following excerpt, which underscores the necessity of increased pervasiveness of evidence-based medicine in medical practice.
And what about a single-payer system in which the federal government pays for all health care costs and negotiates all prices to its satisfaction? The article does a good job of reminding us that “a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.”
Clearly, the health care dilemma in America requires multiple solutions. In a later post, we'll take a look at how each of our presidential candidates has promised to address the state of the American health care system.
But for now some questions ....
1) How do we know that these claims that American health care is more expensive are true? Someone clearly had the data here regarding costs of specialists, overuse of technologies, number of CT scans and MRI machines, etc. What exactly does the data tell us? Who has the data and is it accessible?
2) Economists are cited as specialists regarding the drivers of high medical spending in the US. Exactly which economists are these? What exactly did they say? Are there economists who disagree? If so, about what do they disagree?
It's true that not all of us can be experts on health care but it's also dangerous to assume that the experts are always correct – or perhaps more importantly, that their work is always being interpreted in the appropriate context. I want to make it clear that the reporters here did their job in reporting the situations to us. But I ask the questions because the onus is on us, as consumers of the reporting, to think carefully about the validity of the claims in the reports and their implications on public policy.
But why does health care cost so much more per capita in America? Is it because of a higher percentage of “diseased” patients in the population? Or are the higher health care costs buried somewhere in more expensive treatments or profits to medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies? In “Taking the Measure of Health Care in America,” NPR reporter Joe Neel writes,
”Economists point to profits and administrative costs as the main drivers of health care costs in the United States. Overall, health care is not nearly as lucrative in Europe as it is here, because of more intensive regulation of the various health care sectors in Europe.
Another difference behind the lower costs is that care is less intensive in other countries. A headache doesn't always necessitate a CT scan in Europe, as it seems to in America.”
According to Joe Neel, NPR's research indicates that higher costs in America are also due to higher expectations for treatment and he writes,
”The five countries examined have fewer MRIs, fewer expensive heart procedures — less of the high-tech medicine that keeps costs so high in America. And with fewer machines comes less of a financial incentive to keep them running at a profit.
"People [in the U.S.] routinely expect to become millionaires in health care. That is much less common in Germany," Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. "Everything in Germany is more modest in scale, more modest in expectations."”
An article from the NY Times in November 2007 on “The High Cost of Health Care,” highlights the reason for America's higher health care costs in greater detail.
”Contrary to popular beliefs, this is not a problem driven mainly by the aging of the baby boom generation, or the high cost of prescription drugs, or medical malpractice litigation that spawns defensive medicine. Those issues often dominate political discourse, but they have played relatively minor roles in driving up medical spending in this country and abroad. The major causes are much more deep-seated and far harder to root out.
Almost all economists would agree that the main driver of high medical spending here is our wealth. We are richer than other countries and so willing to spend more. But authoritative analyses have found that we spend well above what mere wealth would predict.”
This is mostly because we pay hospitals and doctors more than most other countries do. We rely more on costly specialists, who overuse advanced technologies, like CT scans and M.R.I. machines, and who resort to costly surgical or medical procedures a lot more than doctors in other countries do. Perverse insurance incentives entice doctors and patients to use expensive medical services more than is warranted. And our fragmented array of insurers and providers eats up a lot of money in administrative costs, marketing expenses and profits that do not afflict government-run systems abroad.
The article also lists several possible remedies such as increased research regarding which treatments would work best for each patient so that less time and money is wasted on unnecessary (and often harmful) treatments, increased utilization of information technologies, more effort spent on preventative care, Medicare-negotiated drug prices, and less pay to providers. Of particular interest to me was the following excerpt, which underscores the necessity of increased pervasiveness of evidence-based medicine in medical practice.
”The sad truth is that less than half of all medical care in the United States is supported by good evidence that it works, according to estimates cited by the Congressional Budget Office. If doctors had better information on which treatments work best for which patients, and whether the benefits were commensurate with the costs, needless treatment could be junked, the savings could be substantial, and patient care would surely improve. It could take a decade, or several, to conduct comparative-effectiveness studies, modify relevant laws, and change doctors’ behavior.”
And what about a single-payer system in which the federal government pays for all health care costs and negotiates all prices to its satisfaction? The article does a good job of reminding us that “a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.”
Clearly, the health care dilemma in America requires multiple solutions. In a later post, we'll take a look at how each of our presidential candidates has promised to address the state of the American health care system.
But for now some questions ....
1) How do we know that these claims that American health care is more expensive are true? Someone clearly had the data here regarding costs of specialists, overuse of technologies, number of CT scans and MRI machines, etc. What exactly does the data tell us? Who has the data and is it accessible?
2) Economists are cited as specialists regarding the drivers of high medical spending in the US. Exactly which economists are these? What exactly did they say? Are there economists who disagree? If so, about what do they disagree?
It's true that not all of us can be experts on health care but it's also dangerous to assume that the experts are always correct – or perhaps more importantly, that their work is always being interpreted in the appropriate context. I want to make it clear that the reporters here did their job in reporting the situations to us. But I ask the questions because the onus is on us, as consumers of the reporting, to think carefully about the validity of the claims in the reports and their implications on public policy.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Why Should We Care About Politics?
As Americans, we ought to care about politics because politics depends on us. Since we live in a representative democracy, we elect people to represent us in government and to act on behalf of our interests. The success of the election process requires that we understand and decide on key issues affecting our interests. Apathy is the most effective way to ensure that our interests will fail to be properly represented.
In 1897, the following letter was written to the New York Times regarding the necessity of an educated American population. Although written more than a century ago, its warning is still relevant today.
This century-old letter argues that there are obligations accompanying citizenship, and they require that we be able to think critically about current political issues.
In his speech entitled, “The Constitution and Education for Citizenship in America,” John J. Patrick, Professor Emeritus of Education at Indiana University, further states,
His speech proposes that our constitutional freedoms depend not only on our knowledge of current events and our ability to reason about the issues, but also on our commitment to understanding and preserving the principles by which our freedoms were originally established.
Why should Christians in America care about politics?
For Christians, these responsibilities take one step further. God requires that we submit to our governing authorities because they are established by His authority. (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13) This commandment has many practical implications. John Piper has written several articles on the topic and regarding some of these implications, he states,
I know that we have just touched the tip of the iceberg regarding why we should care about politics and much more can and should be said about why we should care about politics. In the posts to come, I'd like to revisit the ideas touched on above in greater detail. I hope that this space will become a forum to encourage and foster critical thinking and understanding about some of today's political issues. For now, however, I think its sufficient to say that our nation depends on our active and educated participation in politics – and it is both our civic duty and an expression of our submission to God, who has instituted all governing authorities.
In 1897, the following letter was written to the New York Times regarding the necessity of an educated American population. Although written more than a century ago, its warning is still relevant today.
“The great and ever-present danger is ignorance, prejudice, and passion. Representatives are fairly representative of their constituencies – no better, no worse. Hence the vital necessity that every citizen should be imbued with a full appreciation of the dignity of his citizenship, and the obligations accompanying it; and be able to think or reason for himself when both sides of a question are presented by party orators. Only with such education, which must embrace moral as well as intellectual development, can our Government endure.” (A.B. New York Times. 1897.)
This century-old letter argues that there are obligations accompanying citizenship, and they require that we be able to think critically about current political issues.
In his speech entitled, “The Constitution and Education for Citizenship in America,” John J. Patrick, Professor Emeritus of Education at Indiana University, further states,
“[The] ... constitution makers of Virginia in 1776... understood that if a people would be secure and satisfied in their freedom, they must achieve deep knowledge of and reasoned commitment to the constitutional principles and civic virtue by which civil liberty is attained and sustained.”
His speech proposes that our constitutional freedoms depend not only on our knowledge of current events and our ability to reason about the issues, but also on our commitment to understanding and preserving the principles by which our freedoms were originally established.
Why should Christians in America care about politics?
For Christians, these responsibilities take one step further. God requires that we submit to our governing authorities because they are established by His authority. (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13) This commandment has many practical implications. John Piper has written several articles on the topic and regarding some of these implications, he states,
”Therefore, in America, submission to “governing authority” is first submission to a constitution. This has significant implications for the way the constitution is interpreted and applied—which is a weighty issue in American life at the present time. One implication is that a constitution (or a contract or a lease or a statute or a Bible) cannot have authority over us if we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean. In other words, if you don’t believe that there are objective, original intentions of the authors of the Constitution that define and control its meaning, then you will give to it your own meaning, and that is the opposite of submission to it. So one great implication of saying that God calls us to submit to the Constitution (including its due process for amendment) is that it implies that the Constitution has a fixed, objective meaning.”
I know that we have just touched the tip of the iceberg regarding why we should care about politics and much more can and should be said about why we should care about politics. In the posts to come, I'd like to revisit the ideas touched on above in greater detail. I hope that this space will become a forum to encourage and foster critical thinking and understanding about some of today's political issues. For now, however, I think its sufficient to say that our nation depends on our active and educated participation in politics – and it is both our civic duty and an expression of our submission to God, who has instituted all governing authorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
