It's been too long...

A lot has happened in the past weeks: a Vice Presidential debate, two presidential debates, and a finance bill that turned the Secretary of the Treasury into the most powerful member of the cabinet. The markets are still collapsing – now across the globe, not just stateside. Instead of discussing any of these things in depth, I will mention them briefly here:

The VP debate was far and away more entertaining and more enlightening than the first two Presidential debates – it’s sort of a tossup between the Veep debate and the third Pres debate. Joe Biden was succinct and sharp, Sarah Palin was cute but doesn’t know anything about anything and didn’t answer a single question or pronounce a single g at the end of a word (how can anyone think that she would be a good choice for VP?! With McCain at the top of the ticket, you’re essentially voting for him and his replacement after his heart fails two years into his term…).

The 2^nd Presidential debate made me realize that Barack Obama is a pensive and incredibly intelligent person that will likely become one of the greatest leaders this country (and the world) has ever seen – if we elect him. It also revealed John McCain to be a bitter, hostile old man that cannot sit for any length of time. How can a man that yells at fellow senators be expected to hold discussions with foreign leaders that disagree with him? He referred to Senator Obama as “that one” during the debate. I just cannot see McCain being a strong global leader if he cannot deal with opposing viewpoints.

The final Presidential debate showed McCain as having learned a great deal about economic policy and how to talk about it (here is where I falter as a Democrat because I am absolutely a fiscal conservative and believe in the power of markets to run efficiently. And yes, I’ve been paying attention to the news, but I, for one, agree with The Economist in thinking that this crisis was caused more by misguided regulation than deregulation. McCain started strong and had lots of energy, but as the debate wore on, McCain seemed to lost both steam and energy, turning back into the crotchety old man we have all grown to know. Obama, again, looked incredibly intelligent and pensive. And he also demonstrated his ability to remain calm and collected despite McCain’s cavalier attitude, half-truths and attempts to get a rise out of him. Watching this debate made me realize how desperately I crave an intelligent President that will weigh his options, make well-thought-out decisions, and not lose his temper.

Another note from the debate, upon answering the question of why their running-mates would be qualified to take over as President, Obama touted Joe Biden’s political accomplishments while McCain seemed only able to say that she is a reformer, fresh, and that he is proud of her. That endorsement really leaves something to be desired.

The “bailout” is being spun and perceived entirely wrong. At its best, it’s an investment that will earn taxpayers a profit in the long-run. At its worst, it’s wasting taxpayer dollars on self-important sultans of excess that will eventually cost close to $1,000,000,000,000. What it’s turning into is a hastily thrown together plan that grants one man incredible financial power and discretion – while causing little boost to public or market confidence in the economy. Here’s the deal: the markets are driven almost entirely by perception – people need to stop panicking and allow the market its usual ebb and flow. Sure, this is a down time, and the whole world seems to be falling apart, but things will turn around. That’s what the market does. Have faith in it. Give the recovery plan some time to work. It’s a long-term fix, so in the short-term, have some confidence. Thank goodness I’m not retiring any time soon…

What I’d really like to talk about is the fact that the campaigns and the debates have really made me start to dislike both candidates. I think there is something terribly wrong with our ridiculous two party system. Here are some suggestions to improve the American political system:

Create Campaign Term Limits

I know left Britain to start our own country, but we should steal a page out of their political playbook with this one. They enforce a four month campaign time limit. That’s right. Candidates can only campaign for four months leading up to Election Day. That’s a far cry from our current system. Barack Obama has been running for president for two years. TWO YEARS. George Bush seems so powerless and forgotten right now it’s almost as is he’s not even President…

Modify the Two Party System

This is related to the campaign time limits. If there is a time limit to the campaigns, there can no longer be a ridiculously long primary season. I see two potential changes to be made here:

1) Instead of eliminating candidates in the primary season, allow all of the candidates to run in the general election. They can remain Republican and Democrat. That’s fine. Let the Republicans run Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and the rest. Let the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and anyone else. This way, the extreme right can have their candidate, the extreme left can have theirs, and the vast majority of voters – those that fall somewhere in the middle – can get back the political clout they deserve. Sure, there are a lot of potential issues with this: how many people can run? Who decides who can run? Won’t the far left/right win out if there are too many people in the middle? How will the debates work? etc, but it would certainly make for a more interesting general election…

2) Get a big name Democrat (Hillary) and a big name Republican (Romney) to run as representatives of lesser parties or as independents. This way there would be four legitimate candidates for president. Other parties can join the fray as well, giving progressives, conservatives, leftists, rightists, isolationists, libertarians, separatists … everyone can potentially be represented.

In a perfect world (the world inside my head), the multi-party system would include debates between all of the candidates, last four to six months, and force candidates to focus on issues. In a race between more than two people, policy issues become paramount. Again, though, there would have to be lots of oversight and regulation to prevent candidate collaboration, coordinated attacks of leading candidates, etc.

Born of this idea (and one that I haven’t really fleshed out): force the elected official to choose his/her VP from the pool of presidential candidates. Just a thought.

Eliminate the Electoral College

There are arguments both for and against this idea, but they focus on a two party system of elections. In an election with six or more people vying for President, the Electoral College becomes a completely ridiculous idea. I tend to agree with the Founders that the general public probably is not intelligent enough to elect their leader, but the multi-party system would necessitate its elimination. Let’s make America a true Democracy, force candidates to campaign everywhere (or everywhere they think they can win. This would really make for an interesting campaign schedule, right? Conservatives focusing on the South, Progressives/Liberals fighting it out in urban centers… Exciting stuff!), and let the voice of the American voter really be heard.

Bring Back Real Debates

Enough with the coddling of candidates in national debates. It’s embarrassing to watch moderators toss up easy questions only to have the candidates dodge them and respond with scripted, barely related answers. How about letting moderators go after candidates for dodging questions. Or, better yet, let the candidates go at each other, debating about issues. Another thought: have a ticker across the bottom of the screen doing real-time fact checking – we have the technology. Fox News can run its version of the “facts,” CNN can run liberal facts, and PBS can run the Truth. Watching Obama and McCain trade falsities without anyone correcting them was painful. The entire debate was painful. Bring out all of the candidates (we’re in a multi-candidate system, remember) on stage, and let them duke it out, primary debate style. Now those were entertaining – candidates showing emotion, getting passionate, calling each other out, fighting about policy … bring that kind of energy to the actual election.

__________________________________________________________________

Sure, these changes are rather radical, but it appears to me that we’re living with a broken system. If nothing else, this country was founded on the belief that government ought to be reformed if it stops serving the interests of the people … and I think it’s time for a change. And, really, these changes just give the voter more choices. The actual governing of the country won’t change (although I think we’ve turned over all power to the Secretary of the Treasury – and that is a scary thought), just the election process. Who knows, maybe this could eliminate pandering to special interest groups and radical voters. Or maybe it would lead to more of the same. All I know is that we could use a change.

A Race of Issues

In the 24-hour period following Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, the Obama campaign reported that it had raised a staggering $10,000,000 – a one-day record for the campaign. A good sign, no doubt, but after choosing to run without public funding, the campaign has a lot of fund raising to do.

The McCain campaign, combining the $84,000,000 it opted to receive in public funding with the RNC’s bank account, claims to have about $300,000,000 at its disposal for the campaign. Although there are some limits to what McCain can do with that money (the McCain campaign only has control over the $84M – the RNC must spend the money independent of the McCain campaign or split the cost of hybrid ads that promote other Republicans further down the ticket as well), it still forces the Obama campaign to focus more on fund raising.

The unbelievably huge sums to be spent on these campaigns aside (and those numbers do not take primary spending into account), the Obama campaign starts off this campaign with a miniscule advantage in most polls (some polls show McCain with a slim lead).

In recent national campaigns an incredible amount of media attention is given to tracking various polls, and a scant amount of time is given to discussing each candidate’s social, economic, judicial, governing, etc. policy. I, for one, think that this is a crying shame.

Sure, it’s important for the public to gauge how well each candidate is doing within various groups of demographics, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the media to discuss the similarities and differences between the candidates on policy? To explain to the public the subtleties, nuances and potential pros and cons of each campaign’s proposals?

You probably think that the general public knows the differences between the candidates on various policy issues. I at least assume that many people do. But I might be completely wrong. Reuters released a poll on Sept. 9 showing a huge change in the preference of one particular demographic: white women.

Prior to the Republican Convention, Mr. Obama had an 8 point lead over Mr. McCain among white women. After the Convention, that number had shifted to a 12 point McCain lead.

Perhaps white women were swayed by new, fresh Republican policy revealed at the convention, but since I saw only Democrat-bashing and McCain-praising (as conventions are wont to display) this poll can only mean one thing: white women took their support away from Barack Obama and threw it to John McCain.

Many Hillary Clinton supporters expressed frustration at her both her loss and at the nomination of Joseph Biden as VP candidate, and subsequently threatened to support Mr. McCain over Mr. Obama.

It is understandable to be upset that your candidate did not win the primary. But it makes absolutely no sense to abandon her political and ideological (almost) match to support her political and ideological antithesis.

This shift may have occurred because Sarah Palin is a woman, and women want to see a woman become the second most powerful person in the world.

It may also be explained by the lack of media coverage given to policy and positions.

Sarah Palin is just about as opposite Hillary Clinton as you can get politically, and some people may not realize it.

Obama’s campaign has forever been talking about a new style of politics. What better way to back that up than by discussing policy for the entire campaign? Especially this campaign. A race that Rick Davis (McCain’s campaign manager) claims “is not about issues.”

The Democrats must make this race about issues. About change. About inspiration.

I know that this seems idealistic and perhaps not at all feasible, but in order to recruit independent voters and sway states into the blue, it seems to me that showing how starkly different John McCain’s policies and positions are from Barack Obama’s makes significantly more sense than letting this race be about sex and, well, race.

The debates should be incredibly interesting to watch, and if the Democrats want to display the inadequacies of their opponents, the debates are surely the venue to do so.

The Democrats must educate the public about the candidates and have some faith in the good judgment of people. Let the voters be swayed by policy discussion, not negative advertising and fear.

I just hope I’m right.

Thanks for reading,

Paul

A Call to Action

There’s been a lot of negative talk this past week about John McCain selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. But in spite of her shortcomings, Sarah Palin has been wildly successful at doing one thing: Rallying the conservative base of the Republican Party.

Those of you that watched any of the Republican National Convention saw politician after politician take the stage and spew vicious and cutting rhetoric (without actually talking much about policy) that cut down the Democratic Ticket and labeled McCain and Palin as political mavericks.

This came to a head last night as Sarah Palin mocked Barack Obama’s experience while celebrating her own "accomplishments."

The crowd leapt to its feet in cathartic cheering at every jab. The conservative base loves this woman.

The far right (or so I’ve been told by my conservative friends) votes primarily on two issues : abortion and gay rights. Sure, war and immigration are also important issues, but they fail to mobilize conservative voters in the same way.

The conservative base has outvoted moderates and liberals in every election in recent memory (with that streak ending with the 2006 midterms. Way to go Dems). Their incredibly strong voting record is the reason that they have power.

Conservatives run this country because conservatives vote.

For too long have young Democrats and Independents sat idly by as the conservative base of the Republican Party has taken over national politics and altered this country's political landscape.

For too long has political fear mongering reigned supreme.

For too long has nothing been done.

I will not let my incredible frustration with the Republican Party strip me of my ability to rise above their cheap politics of insults and fear-mongering.

Instead, I propose a call to action.

Now is the time to do something, to make something happen.

I implore all of you that, like me, believe wholeheartedly that Barack Obama should be the next President (or at least are terrified of a John McCain presidency) to get out there and VOTE.

But don’t stop there. Encourage your friends! Call people you know in Southern and swing states. Help out somewhere, somehow.

Now, more than ever, this country needs to live up to the ideals of Democracy. Now is the time to show the world that America wants to get back on track. Now is the time to take back our standing as the world’s greatest nation.

Now is the time to make your voice heard.

Thanks for reading.
-Paul