Obama’s alienation of independents and white voters, along with the gap between the right and the left, means that it is possible that Republicans not only may pick up many seats, but also even regain control of Congress.

Washington strategists are focusing on how the president can make a political comeback in 2012, abandoning the 2010 elections to fate.  The White House has different ideas, with a strategy to win or minimize the damage in 2010. 

Even though Senator Scott Brown has proven himself a Republican independent, breaking ranks with his party to pass important legislation for the good of the country, he is still in the Republican caucus. 

Brown was elected by a landslide in the special election to complete the term of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, an office he held for nearly 47 years.  His campaign announcement said that the state “needs an independent thinker” and the anti-Obama, anti-incumbent sentiment carried him to office. 

It was a wake-up call for Democrats. 

The stakes

In November, there are 36 Senate seats and all 435 House seats up for reelection.  Democrats need to capture 39 additional seats to regain control of the House and one additional seat for the Senate.  The key states focused on for Senate races by Republicans are:

• Connecticut (Senator Christopher Dodd – Dem)
• Delaware (seat formerly held by Vice president Joe Biden – Dem)
• Illinois (Rod Blagojevich’s appointee Roland Burris is retiring – Dem)
• Massachusetts (Scott Brown – Rep)
• Nevada (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid –Dem)
• New York (seat formerly held by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – Dem)
• Pennsylvania (Senator Arlen Specter – Dem – lost primary).

Loss of all those Senate seats would reduce the upper house to a near tie vote on every piece of legislation, and considering the infighting and hostility between parties now, there may very well be nothing accomplished until 2012 ends.  This would play into Republican hands who would like nothing more than to campaign against a president who accomplished nothing in the last two years of his first term.  

The strategy

The Democrats plan a two-part strategy that includes softening sentiments against Washington, the Democratic side of Congress, and the president. 

Part One

First, Democrats can be expected to intensify the accomplishments of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care reform), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (economic stimulus), as well as the Credit CARD Act of 2009 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (financial reform). 

This will be to demonstrate that Democrats can accomplish positive things for the American middle class in spite of bloc voting to defeat all actions.  Voters are upset, however, on the health care provision that requires everyone to have health care by 2014 or face penalties. 

Democrats might be advised to address modifying that portion of the health care bill. 

Obama disappointed his anti-war support base, when he lengthened troop withdrawal from 16 months in campaign promises to 19 months after he took office and backloaded his campaign promise of withdrawing one to two brigades per month. 

The president has now officially committed to ending our military involvement in Iraq by August 31, 2010, removing all U.S. combat troops.  Of course, 50,000 troops will still remain to train and advise Iraqi security and conduct counter terrorism operations.  Those troops will be likely at times to engage in fighting at the request of Iraqi commanders, but all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. 

Democrats are also looking to regather environmentalists with the president’s push to replace our black economy (fossil fuels) with a green economy (renewable energy sources). 

They will highlight to environmentalists the strong (if not somewhat tardy) handling of the Gulf oil spill with the promise of restoring the Gulf environment, backed by the $20 billion escrowed by BP.  The passage of the H.R. 4213 bill, extending unemployment benefits, also increased the tax on oil to 34 cents per barrel to fund against future spills (H.R. 4213 (p286) Title IV: Subtitle D – Sec. 431). 

That bill, however, does not address a federal law that caps corporate liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but Republicans blocked them.

There are certainly items the Republicans can snipe at, like accusing Democrats of tax-and-spend, while they support lower taxes for all – with no responsibility for any of it, unless they are trapped into talking about their history of running up the deficit when they held the power. 

Republicans have established a glaring very public record of voting as a bloc against every major proposal, including equal pay for all and the extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of workers without jobs. 

Recently, Obama was the first sitting president to appear on a daytime talk show.  The president needs more appearances on The View and other daytime shows with large homemaker followings who can influence their family members to see him as a regular family man with a tough job.

Part Two

The second part of the Democratic strategy involves recruiting strong candidates for open Congressional and Senate seats, while playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the traditional Republicans.  This is meant to split the Republican electorate and increase the chances of less electable candidates edging out strong moderates.  Then extensively research the candidates to help moderate voters reject them – just politics as normal.

It also involves using the White House and strong Congressional members to raise more campaign funds than the opposition. And the final step is to coordinate with Democratic allies like environmentalists and labor unions to mount a get-out-and-vote effort for young, first-time, and non-white voters.  These are the people who swept Obama into office. 

The opposition

Republicans believe that concern over the lack of jobs and resentment over the big-spending ways of the Administration will prevail in voting preferences over the merits of the stimulus and economic recovery, as well as health care and financial regulation reform.

They will trash the health care bill and the compulsory coverage, saying they will, if elected, repeal the bill, start over and do it right.  

Republicans will talk about coming tax increases and how they will hold or reduce taxes to put more money in voters’ pockets, allowing small businesses to create jobs.  They will try to kidnap the platform of change. 

Issues afloat

One significant item the Congress must deal with is the tax cuts implemented by President Bush that are due to expire at the end of 2010.  Read What to Expect if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Democrats have already planned to extend some of the tax cuts, but are planning to let them expire for citizens with incomes over $250,000, saying they are the rich and their income that would go to taxes would not stimulate the economy anyway.  It will save $67.5 billion per year from being added to the deficit. 

What Democrats are missing is that voters who make above $250,000 see themselves as the upper middle class who would spend their disposable income in ways to stimulate the economy.  Drawing an arbitrary income line will drive those above it to the other camp.

If Democrats voted an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all, even short term, they could defuse the Republican election rhetoric that Democrats will raise taxes for Americans.  If they were really shrewd, they would also lower other taxes like the corporate income tax from 35 percent to the 23.5 percent par level with Europe. 

The Deficit

An issue separating Congress and American voters is the size of the deficit.  It is a subject that may, along with unemployment, sway elections to challengers. 

Many Members of Congress and voters misunderstand the role federal deficits play in managing the economy.  Major economists have taken the position that federal deficits are an integral part of a global economy based on trade deficits and dollar reserves.   Congress has yet to realize there is no advantage in being too “fiscally responsible.”

Let Republicans talk about balancing the budget and keeping taxes low.  They will have to avoid being trapped into talking about their own history of running up the deficit when they held the power.  Perhaps Dick Cheney was right – deficits don’t matter. 

Primary scorecard

Republican victories in key states Virginia and New Jersey shifted the political territory against the Democrats and their leader, President Obama. 

Less than a year after Obama’s election, Republicans took back Virginia’s top office after eight years of Democratic rule, electing former Attorney General Bob McDonnell. 

Eight years ago, Democrat Mark Warner was elected Virginia’s governor, benefiting from dissension in the Republican ranks, and promises not to raise taxes.  Restricted by Virginia’s Constitution against consecutive terms, he left office with a 71% approval rating. 

His Lieutenant Governor, Tim Kaine, who promised to continue the policies of his predecessor, succeeded him.  He is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 

McDonnell had defeated his Democratic rival Creigh Deeds in 2005, for the Virginia office of Attorney General.  That race was close and Deeds filed for a recount that confirmed McDonnell had won.

He won again Tuesday based mainly on his position as a bipartisan conciliator focused on job creation and economic growth. 

Did the Republican victory mean a change in political sentiment for Virginia?  Or was the more powerful candidate elected for his accomplishments and platform that identified what the citizens want. 
 

In New Jersey, incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine lost the top office to Chris Christie after a term that included a government shutdown over a budget dispute with legislators, cutting programs, decreasing funding to colleges, lost time in office due to a speeding accident, and a controversial toll increase plan for fundraising rejected by voters, along with other unpopular financial moves.

The governor’s speeding accident prompted voters to provide for a Lieutenant Governor to serve in the Governor’s absence. 

Christie ran on a pledge to clean up corruption, not to raise taxes and to spur growth in the state’s manufacturing sector as well as increase production of alternative energy.
 

In New York’s upstate 23^rd Congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens beat out third-party conservative Doug Hoffman after the Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava pulled out of the race and threw her support to Democrat Owens. 

The district has been represented by Republicans since 1873. 

Owens platform included the creation of jobs in his district, and ensuring Fort Drum (with a population of more than 12,000 military personnel) is preserved. 
 

What conclusions can we draw from these contests?  In all contests, voters were concerned with jobs and the economy.

A Virginia voter said, “I think there are a lot of questions about whether [the country] is going in the right direction. Obama’s slogan last year was change, but I think it’s changed a little too much and needs to change back the other way a bit.”

The Democratics won the election in 2008 as the party of hope and change.  With a discontented electorate growing hardened to those promises, Republicans are now positioning themselves as the real party of change.

Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, drew this conclusion: “When Republicans stand up for pro-growth policy, fiscal responsibility, and economic conservatism unapologetically, and reflect their district on social issues, they win.”
 

Another aspect to Tuesday’s election is that young voters and minorities who were such a Democratic force in 2008, stayed home in droves (more than 3 million in Virginia and New Jersey alone), leaving victories at the polls to older voters, many of them Republicans. 

One Virginia college student seemed to capture the mood of non-voters when she said she did not bother to vote in the election because the candidates didn’t give her anything to get excited about.

Exit polls showed about 60 percent of voters in both states said their feelings about the President were not a factor in their choice.
 

Finally, voters seem to advocate independence, rather than vote strict party lines for issues chosen by a political machine.  Independents are performance-based and their numbers are growing. 

They could be the nucleus of a new political party, but probabaly wouldn’t vote along those party lines either.  But those voters will be a growing force to judge political performance. 

And they will vote out the ins who do not take action and make things happen.

The stimulus package is lumbering its way through Congress.  Using the House of Representative’s $820 billion stimulus bill as a model, the Senate came up with its own bill of $900 plus billion, and then carved it down to nearer $800 billion.

After more than five days of Senate conference negotiations, more than $110 billion has been cut from the $937 billion proposal.  The latest figure runs around $780 billion plus another possible $47 billion more in already promised tax incentives to aid auto and home sales broken down to about 40 percent tax cuts and the rest in spending. 

Major spending items cut from the bill were $40 billion in aid to the states, $16 billion for school construction and around $6 billion for public health projects.  Up to $100 billion will be spent to buy and modify some troubled homeowner mortgages.

The 58 Democrats in the majority are enough to pass a vote on the bill if they can get it to that position.  However, at least 60 Senators must vote to proceed to a vote before the vote is actually taken.  Currently, Republicans blocked a vote on Friday saying they have not had time to read the bill.  Debating sessions have been set for Saturday and Monday, with a vote expected midday Tuesday. 

The Republicans complained that the bill that came from the House contained a wish list of everything the Democrats ever wanted, and to some extent, I think some of that may be true.

Republicans Arlen Specter R-PA, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both R-MN have stated that they will vote for the bill in or near its present form.

Senator Arlen Specter is not totally happy with the bill, but said, “I do believe that we have to act and I believe that under all the circumstances this is the best we can do and we ought to do it.”

Senator Susan Collins said, “This project, this bill is not perfect.  It would be difficult to get a bill that everyone agrees on; but it represents an effective, targeted approach to the economic crisis facing our country.”

Once the bill is passed in the Senate, representatives from both chambers will meet and reconcile any differences in the two bills, making it a single bill to be voted on by both houses and signed by the president.  Obama’s signature is what makes it law.

Moving to act quickly, the provisions of the bill target around 80 percent of the total package to be distributed into the economy in the first two years.

In addition, Senators voted Friday to direct the U.S. Treasury to spend at least $50 billion of the $350 billion remaining in the TARP fund on home foreclosure relief efforts. 

Democrats and the few Republicans who consider the welfare of the people they represent are working on a compromise stimulus bill that, although imperfect, can be put into action.  The Do-Nothing Republicans of the male Caucasian cadre who voted against equal pay for women, minorities, disabled and older workers, rail out against any action except their own.

Two of the most notable are John McCain R-AZ, still stinging over his last hurrah at trying to be President, and Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Party.

Steele advocated in the latest Republican radio address that keeping more money in their pockets would help families the most.  I wonder if Chairman Steele understands economics at all, or is purposely looking to destroy America for his party’s purpose.  People keeping money in their pockets will extend the recession indefinitely and deepen it.  It is the flow of money in consumer spending that will start and drive the economic engine.  But then, they know that.

The indictment contains charges that Blagojevich corruptly used his office of governor, involving himself in pay-to-play schemes for personal profit, threatening to rescind large state grants unless he received sizeable campaign contributions, and attempting to trample editorial voices that spoke against him.

The indictment also contains federal complaints of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (punishable by 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine), and a count of solicitation of bribery (10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine).

Blagojevich was looking for a “substantial” salary at a union affiliated organization or non-profit foundation, a corporate board appointment for his wife, or maybe an ambassadorship or equivalent in return for his Senate choice.

The top charge

The top charge is that Blagojevich attempted to sell the appointment of the Senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder in an eBay-type auction. That caused the FBI to wiretap the governor’s telephone conversations in recent weeks.

Blagojevich had recently stated that he wasn’t worried about anybody listening to his telephone conversations. Recorded on the wiretap tape, Blagojevich is heard describing the Senate seat as the position “is a f***ing (expletive) valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

The criminal complaint also said he was heard saying he might even appoint himself if he could get nothing for it.

“The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, said in a statement detailing the charges, adding the arrest of Blagojevich was made in order to stop a “crime spree.”

It has been reported that Blagoyevich had been under federal investigation since 2003, suspected of engaging in corrupt practices, largely through his “Friends of Governor Blagoyevich” organization, such as selling appointments and awarding contracts.

Business as Usual

The arrest and indictment brings to light the continuous corruption in the politics of this Midwest state that served as the starting point for both President-elect Obama and another former President, Abraham Lincoln. It is sad news for the state of Illinois, which has been struggling with political corruption for decades (their last governor is currently in jail).

Blagojevich is the latest Illinois governor to be indicted (and convicted?). George Ryan, the governor immediate preceding, is in jail following a federal corruption conviction. Three Illinois governors in the past 35 years have been sentenced to prison for corruption; Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, and George Ryan. Blagojevich may be the fourth.

Obama unaware

President-elect Obama said he was “saddened and sobered” by the news and had not been aware of the alleged attempts to sell his former Senate seat. Obama has attempted to distance himself from Blagojevich, who has been under investigation for years, but it was still an embarrassment for the President-elect for the governor of his home state to be arrested on corruption charges.

Being unaware will not stop investigation of involvement for the new President in the early stages of his administration. It is critical, when Obama takes office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago must be allowed to pursue this case wherever it goes, even though the President has the power to name his own U.S. Attorney to the post to replace Fitzpatrick.

Blagojevich could make a plea deal either before trial or before sentencing for turning (truthful?) testimony against the one politician higher in the tree than he is. Blagojevich’s indictment is the first step in a major political issue that will be around quite a while, and get much bigger.

Changing the law

Illinois state lawmakers immediately called for Blagoveich to resign. The response from Blagojevich’s office said the allegations would not affect the functioning of the state.

Which means he won’t resign.

The pressure has been on the governor to appoint an African-American to the post, since Obama was the only African-American in the Senate.

Illinois lawmakers said they would go into session to try to have the law of senate succession changed. According to the Constitution, the only ways of taking the appointment from Blagojevich is:
· he is no longer Governor (he won’t resign, and impeachment takes too long)
· to schedule a special election as soon as possible (where voters could elect a Republican)
· if the legislature has to empower the state’s chief executive, they can withhold that authorization.

If Blagojevich attempts to appoint himself, the U.S. Senate will expel him, as they were prepared to do with former Alaska Senator, Ted Stevens.

Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, called out for the decision to fill the Illinois seat by appointment be removed from Blagojevich until a special election could be held.

The Constitution

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the governor of the state to make a temporary appointment to the Senate seat until the state legislature calls a special election. There is no time limit, and many times the legislature will wait until the next scheduled Election Day for the voters to choose.

The Amendment clause covering this situation reads:
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

What lies ahead

It is likely that Democratic Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan will run for governor in 2010. She is well-favored and has recently spoken against giving clemency to former governor George Ryan.

Blagojevich has a hostile relationship with Madigan’s father, Michael Madigan, the Illinois House Speaker and Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois who has drafted possible impeachment proceedings against the governor.

Blagojevich’s job approval rating was put at 13% last October by the Chicago Tribune, the lowest rating ever in their polling history, mostly due to the corruption scandals surrounding him.

He’s done – resignation, conviction, or impeachment.

Hopefully, the appointed / elected Senator will not have to buy the seat, and will help lead Illinois out of the swamp of political corruption.

Update: April 3, 2009

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was indicted today by a federal grand jury for corruption while in office.  The 52-year old Blagojevich was indicted on 16 felony counts that included racketeering, conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion, and making false statements for federal agents.  The 75-page indictment make Blagojevich face more than 300 years in prison, more than $4 million in fines, and restitution.  The indictment alleges Blagojevich illegally leveraged his authority as governor, and was the center of a conspiracy to seek cash, campaign contributions and high-paying jobs for himself in exchange for state business, legislation, pension fund investments and state appointments, the most well-known of which was the Senate seat appointment to replace President Obama.

Federal agents say they have Blagojevich convicting himself on court-approved wiretaps.  Three more felony counts name others in the conspiracy, some of whom have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, which means they will say anything they are told to stay out of jail.

Blagojevich is free on bond and has promised to vigorously defend himself in court as well as tell his side in a book he has under contract.

Left, Right and Center are terms, relative to the political mainstreams in a country.

Left-wing

The Political left, Left-wing, or Left are terms applied to various political beliefs and have taken on different meanings in different time periods and in different countries. We will only discuss modern day beliefs in the U.S.

Since the rise of Marxism, the term political left has been associated with socialism, communism, and social liberalism. In the United States, political left refers to liberalism, and is tightly associated with the beliefs of the Democratic Party.

Most of those who hold a left-wing position on economics believe in some form of government intervention in economics, ranging from Keynesian economics, which encompasses the welfare state up to nationalization and central planning of the country’s economy.

This adds up to big government, where the state is the guiding hand of the people, a concept feared by the founding fathers. The guiding hand runs from influence to control. The founding fathers were afraid that an influencing or controlling government would not know when to step back and let people experience life on their own.

Marxist teachings define salaried workers as members of the proletariat, a term used to identify a lower social class. The left has identified with this group since the Industrial revolution when the left became associated with trade union movements. Union members learned that more members meant more bargaining power in their fight against the ruling class.

The U.S. does not have any strong following of the Ultra-left or Far-Left, which follows closely the teachings of Trotsky of communist Russia and Mao Tse-tung of communist China.

Right-wing

The Political right, Right-wing, or Right are also terms applied to various political beliefs.

Originally, during the French Revolution, right or left wing referred to seating arrangements in parliament:
· those who sat on the right supported the monarchy and aristocratic privilege
· those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported radical political reform. 

Right-wing has since been used to refer to wide variety of politically conservative and reactionary ideologies and support for traditional values. Reactionaries opposes change or progress in society and seek a return to a previous state of affairs.

In the 20th century the term right-wing has also been used to refer to support for laissez-faire capitalism where the government plays a minimal role. It also supports free markets where property and goods are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by sellers and buyers following the laws of supply and demand.

Right-wing has come to be associated with preserving the conservative status quo in the form of well-established practices and structured relationships. Right-wing advocates support a un-centralized economy based on economic freedom, and supports policies such as free markets and free trade. Republicans since Ronald Reagan have identified themselves mostly as conservatives.

Some groups making up America’s right-wing include:

Christian conservatism is primarily interested in family values. They believe that abortion is wrong, they reject same-sex marriage, and advocate regulation of the public media in the areas of profanity and sexual references.

Libertarian conservatism is primarily interested in personal freedom. They do not trust any governing power and advocate a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution, especially regarding federal power. Small government conservatives have similar views.

This adds up to a smaller government model, the image the founding fathers had in mind, where government manages the infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), but allows people to stumble onward by themselves, whether or not they need help. It allows people to experience life on their own, but also allows laws of nature to prevail, where predators consume their prey.

The economic situation in today’s world is an example of economic freedom gone wild. Unfettered capitalism, combined with American ingenuity, has created a worldwide cobweb of financial instruments, backed only by the documents that describe them and the hope that the economy will continue to escalate. That didn’t happen.

One definitiion of a cobweb is something flimsy and insubstantial, an insidious snare built to entrap its prey. Sounds like that is what happened.

Political center

Centrism refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes of left-wing politics and right-wing politics.

A tongue-in-cheek definition of centrist is any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers too far Left. Some centrist parties in other countries have a clear separate ideology of commitment to both small business and environmental protection.

The Centrist Party in the United States was created on July 4, 2006 as a self-declared response to the stalemate between the Republican Party and Democratic Party in the previous two presidential elections. It intends to provide the electorate with a middle ground for politicians and voters. It has not yet gained any political following.

In the most famous part of the 2004 Democratic convention keynote speech, then-Senator Barack Obama said, “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America – there’s the United States of America.”

I found out what I am, politically.

I am a centrist liberal conservative.

As the results of the 2008 elections solidify into historical facts, a big news item is the 60-seat majority the Democrats are seeking in the Senate. Currently, the score of the 100-seat council is:
· Democrats 58
· Republicans 40
· Undecided 2.

Since Senator Ted Stevens lost his bid for reelection in Alaska to Anchorage Democratic mayor Mark Begich in the close race that was like the Kentucky Derby of politics, there are only two races left.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is now back in the arms of the Democratic caucus, after President-elect Barack Obama spoke privately to Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid about Senator Lieberman. Senator Reid’s tone had been chilly when discussing Senator Lieberman, and had talked about stripping him of his committee assignments.

Tuesday, December 2, Georgia incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss challenger Democrat Jim Martin will find out who is the Senator from this state in a runoff election, and whether the Democrats will get another seat toward their goal of 60, or be stopped short.

Both candidates fell a hair short short of winning the 50 percent of the vote required for election under Georgia law. Senator Chambliss led Martin on Election Day by 109,671 votes.

Historically, Georgia runoff elections draw significantly lower turnout than the general election, perhaps due to the holiday timing. About 30 percent of the statewide vote in Georgia was from African-Americans who voted 98 percent for Obama, and 93 percent for Martin. In early voting so far, African-American turnout was minimal.

Democrats know they must re-create the excitement felt during the Presidential campaign, but that will be difficult, since Obama has not campaigned in Georgia since the election, and former President Bill Clinton made a token appearance on November 19.

Opinions from Georgia voters are that they will vote against the Democrats on the grounds that a supermajority of 60 seats will give the Democrats too much power, andthere needs to be some checks in place.

Alaska governor Sarah Palin, now the country’s foremost conservative crowd-pleaser will attend four rallies across the state on Monday, the day before the election.

Allen Buckley of the Libertarian Party is not a part of the runoff. Buckley took 3.4% of the electorate on November 4.

After the election December 2, I think the score will be:
· Democrats 58
· Republicans 41
· Undecided 1.

What happens (and can happen) if BOTH candidates get the SAME number of electoral votes, and the decision goes to Congress to elect a President?

In my research, I found that the Constitution of the United States of America is the oldest and shortest constitution of any major sovereign state. I didn’t know that. Even so, it has twenty-seven amendments, modifying the document written in 1787.

• It is a contract that provides the entire framework for the organization of the United States Government.
• It is the supreme law of our United States.
• It carefully outlines the unique powers of each of the three branches of government and yet reserves many rights for the individual states.

The Constitution was written mostly by James Madison, and emphasizes the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. 

It was written to define process that allows change.  The authors looked to strike a balance between rigid and easy, to prevent hasty and ill-conceived actions.

The original draft favored the federal government, with House of Representative members being elected by the people, and the Senators elected by the House members. Representation was based entirely on population, which favored large states, so a compromise was reached to set House membership on state population, and Senate membership on an equal number for each state.

The original draft provided that the members of the legislature elect the President.  After the compromise, it was written into the Constitution that state electors would elect the President.

The entire document consists of a Preamble and 7 Articles handwritten across four pages.

The founding fathers realized that if the Constitution were to endure, revisions would be necessary to reflect changing times.  The original 7 Articles are followed by the 27 Amendments that have made it through a proposal and ratification process described in Article Five that requires approval by three-fourths of the State legislatures.

Since 1789, there have been more than ten thousand Constitutional amendments introduced in Congress; one to two hundred are introduced in a typical Congressional year. In all that time, Congress has proposed only 33 for ratification, and 27 have succeeded.

Of course, the first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights.

Once ratified, new Amendments to the Constitution are added onto the existing document without removing or altering any previous Amendments.  There is no procedure for deleting repealed provisions.  Even when new Amendments directly contradict prior Amendments or parts of Amendments, both are left in place.

Here’s something I didn’t know. There are currently six Amendments still outstanding and unratified.

Two of those six unresolved Amendments have passed their ratification deadline, but the remaining four have no expiration date.  The oldest, proposed by the First Congress in 1789 became of little or no practical value after the country’s population reached ten million. The others date from 1812, 1861 and 1924.

The parts of the Constitution concerned with the election of the President are as follows:

Article II describes the process and power of the President and Vice President, describing the qualifications of candidates and process of election and succession.  It also provides for the removal if necessary of any officer of the government.

The Twelfth Amendment (1804) changed the method of presidential elections so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for President and Vice President.  It modified the electoral procedure established in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, due to problems in the elections of 1796 and 1800.

The Twentieth Amendment (1933) specifies the end date and time of Congressional and presidential terms and of presidential succession by the Vice President.

The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) limits the President to two terms, after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four elected terms and died in office (succeeded by Harry S. Truman).

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967) partially replaced the unclear wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which deals with succession to the Presidency, altered details of presidential succession, provided for temporary removal of the President, and provided for replacement of the Vice-President.

In case of a vacancy, the Constitution mandates that the Vice President is to be the President’s successor.  If both the President and Vice President are unable to serve for any reason, the next officer in the presidential line of succession, currently the Speaker of the House, becomes acting President, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by every member of the Cabinet in a set order of succession, all the way down to Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Members of the cabinet not Constitutionally eligible to be President, through age or place of birth are bypassed.  There are currently two.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

The Table of the Presidents shows political parties and term dates of each President in the history of the United States, as well as links to each individual President for his biography.

Next: Election of the President

I like to deal in facts and whole truths, and I believe people (voters) would like to see both sides.

I have no stake in either party. Whoever is elected will do what they can do under the Constitution, which thanks to our founding fathers provided for a government by the people. The president is the leader; the Congress makes the laws and controls the nation’s spending. True, the president may veto laws and spending line items, but the Congress can override him if they believe in the cause. Our nation is one of checks and balances preventing too much power for any individual or group.

Please make sure you vote on Tuesday, November 4.

It is interesting to note that the contest recently has been between Obama and Palin.

Allegation:
As governor, Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent.
Facts:
Palin increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as “historic.” She signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding, increasing spending on students with high-cost special requirements from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That nearly triples the per-student spending over three fiscal years.

Detractors point to a drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools, a budget line for special projects. The special needs funding is provided through the public school funding formula. The Foundation Program, a different budget component, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

Allegation:
Palin tried to ban books from the Wasilla Public Library when she was mayor and fired the librarian.
Facts:
Palin brought up the subject of banning books from the library at a town council meeting, asking among other conditions, general questions to the librarian Mary Ellen Emmons about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned or removed from the shelves? Emmons responded that all books had been purchased following state guidelines and she would refuse to remove the books. According to Emmons, Palin “was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.”

Although Palin pressed the issue, she never asked that books be banned and no books were actually banned. The episode is chronicled in the local newspaper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.

Months later (separate issue), Palin removed Emmons from her position because Palin felt she wasn’t supportive, but reinstated her the next day due to public outcry. Two years later, the librarian left the post, and when questioned some years later, said she did not want to revisit that painful part of her life, but that Palin was too hard to work for.

This episode is chronicled in the Anchorage Daily News.

Allegation:
Palin lies about opposing the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Facts:
Palin endorsed the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island in a 2006 gubernatorial debate saying, “I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now.” Anchorage Daily News reported, “In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity.”

The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan’s airport on lightly populated (population 50) Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Ketchikan is Alaska’s entry port for northbound cruise ships that bring in more than one million visitors annually. Air service into Gravina Island airport requires a 15-minute ferry ride to reach the more densely populated Ketchikan, located on Revillagigedo Island, which has little room to expand.

Alaska’s congressional delegation received blistering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan. Congress eventually removed the earmark language. The money still went to Alaska, and the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski was left to decide whether to go ahead with the bridge or spend the money on something else. He went ahead.

After Palin was sworn into office that fall, her budget allocated no funding for the Ketchikan bridge. When the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state’s list of transportation priorities, with the lack of further support from Congress.

Projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge had now risen to nearly $400 million, and on September 19, 2007, now-governor Palin redirected funds away from the project altogether and announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, since the bridge was now $329 million short of completion, money that would have to come out of Alaskan pockets. A report quoting Palin, late in the governor’s race, indicated she would also consider alternatives to a bridge, such as enhanced ferry access to Gravina Island.

Just a month after McCain himself slammed the Ketchikan bridge for taking money that could have been used to shore up dangerous bridges like one that collapsed in Minnesota, Palin issued a press release announcing her change of direction.

Meanwhile, the state of Alaska is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone – because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.

Allegation:
Palin and McCain say they’re completely in sync on getting rid of congressional earmarks — those spending items that lawmakers stick into bills to benefit their constituents and allies.
Facts:
Palin told the crowd at the Republican National Convention (RNC) that she had signed major ethics reforms and had appointed politicians from both parties to serve in her gubernatorial administration. “I’ve championed reforms to end the abuse of earmark spending by Congress.”

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that tracks the booming business of congressional earmarks reported “She was an avid recipient of earmark dollars as mayor, and now that she’s on the ticket with McCain, who is an unabashed opponent of earmarks, she’s toeing that line.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense reviewed lobbying reports that Wasilla filed when Palin was mayor (prior to her serving as governor), and came up with 14 items, totaling slightly less than $27 million. The lobbyist for Wasilla was a former chief of staff to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who was paid about $140,000 over four years.

Stevens also chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee — the group that writes the federal checks for much of Palin’s term as mayor. Palin distanced herself from Stevens when he was indicted on corruption charges in July.

Allegation:
Palin is registered with the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a fringe group that contends that Alaskans ought to get another chance to decide if statehood is such a good deal for them.
Facts:
As of June 2006 the AIP has reported 13,542 registered members, making it the state’s third largest party, behind the Republicans with 111,526 and the Democrats with 66,218. The party held its 2008 convention last March, and Vice Chairman Dexter Clark reminded members that they had supported Palin for governor. AIP Chair Lynette Clark (a relation?) said that Palin and her husband, Todd, went to the party convention in 1996 and were members since 1994.

On September 2, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Alaska Division of Elections said that Todd Palin, the husband of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, had registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in 1995 and 2000, but is no longer registered as a member of the party, having registered as “undeclared” since 2002.

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, reported that regardless of the impression given to members of the AIP, “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”

The McCain campaign released state documents, in which Palin declared herself a Republican eight different times since 1990.

Sarah Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party according to a new statement released by AIP chairman Lynnette Clark on September 3, 2008. Clark said that she had based her report on unverified information from another party member.

Anything else?
BobG