As I discussed in Part 1 (http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/01/voting-this-year-part-1-what-i-think.html), I am not at all impressed with the political landscape, and I think both parties have major problems. Democrats want to throw money at everything, and Republicans are greedy. (Please at least read the first post if you think that statement is without nuance; the nuance is over there.) However, I do think citizens should vote, even if none of the candidates meet their requirements. You can always write someone in or vote for your least worst candidate; besides, there are always other measures and candidates to vote for, too, so at a minimum you still need to go to the polls.
My top two candidates are not running, and my 3rd favorite will not make the cut, so that leaves me with my 4th favorite. Unless something odd happens, I will vote for him. Here is how I came to this decision.
I'm looking for someone that will help make the country function, which sometimes means more taxes, sometimes less; sometimes more government, sometimes less; sometimes growing, sometimes receding. The most important aspect, to me, is that the President has to be someone that both "gets it" and can make the citizenry and the world understand that he/she "gets it." Our allies should feel comforted, our enemies should be discomforted, our economy should do better, our kids should have a better living than we do, crimes should be punished, diseases should be cured, etc. With the optimal President, everyone that follows the rules should do a little bit better.
What do you think?
My top two candidates are not running, and my 3rd favorite will not make the cut, so that leaves me with my 4th favorite. Unless something odd happens, I will vote for him. Here is how I came to this decision.
I'm looking for someone that will help make the country function, which sometimes means more taxes, sometimes less; sometimes more government, sometimes less; sometimes growing, sometimes receding. The most important aspect, to me, is that the President has to be someone that both "gets it" and can make the citizenry and the world understand that he/she "gets it." Our allies should feel comforted, our enemies should be discomforted, our economy should do better, our kids should have a better living than we do, crimes should be punished, diseases should be cured, etc. With the optimal President, everyone that follows the rules should do a little bit better.
Here are my choices:
1) Bill Clinton. Okay, so, the obvious problem here is that it would require a constitutional amendment for him to even run; once he did, he would have to mount a campaign against an incumbent President who is employing his wife. Ha. So, obviously this is not going to happen. But he is still my favorite candidate, and the one against whom others will be measured. Why? Because he should be almost everyone's favorite candidate. He is the only President within my lifetime to balance the budget. He is the only one to shrink the federal government. He made -- and, importantly, ENFORCED -- trade agreements throughout the world. He reformed welfare. He got millions out of poverty, prepared us to save Social Security, and readied us for the Information Age. He also got closer to killing Bin Laden than anyone following him (prior to Obama succeeding) ... before most people knew the name, and during the worst crisis of his Presidency (remember how it was compared to the movie _Wag the Dog_? Yeah, that was Bin Laden.)
Bill Clinton communicates so well, so empathetically, that the world listens. He is so well informed that, when people would come to brief him on situations, he would often already know more about it than the briefers. As he joked, he should be the Tea Party's favorite candidate, as he balanced the budget and it was projected that, under his policies, the national debt (the WHOLE DEBT, not just the yearly deficit) would have been paid off by 2013 -- next year.
For almost every metric, people of all stripes were better off, long term, under the Clinton administration than before or since.So, if we pass the Amendment, and he runs, he has my vote. And I bet he would win, even as a vegan with 20 extra years under his belt.
2) Hillary Clinton. If you can't get Bill, how about Hillary? Because I am so enamored with Bill, I didn't mention this part, but either way you get a two-fer -- definitely the most politically competent First Spouse in the history of the nation, with formidable diplomatic powers and skills. Hillary was in the White House for 8 years with Bill, has served as a Senator and as Secretary of State, and is in general one of the most competent, toughest people on the planet. I voted for her 4 years ago, and I would vote for her today. I do not think she would be a carbon copy of Bill Clinton, but I do think she would follow his mantra of "Do what works." She has the experience to know what that is, and the political savvy to not have to waste time -- she would be prepared Day 1 to steer the U.S. and the world into a safer, healthier, more economically sound future.
Of course, if she ran, she would be viewed as a traitor by the Democrats, who already see Obama as vulnerable. Plus, she probably agreed not to run this time as a condition for accepting the mantle at Secretary of State. C'est la vie, eh?
3) (The surprise on the list) Ron Paul. WHAT?!? Yeah, I said it -- Ron Paul. Why? Because, though I think we need to balance things, his laser focus on personal liberty might, by pushing the pendulum hard left, bring us closer to balance than the big government administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama. His social conservatism doesn't bother me because he wants the government out of our bedrooms. His foreign policy, though extreme, would force our allies to step up and take some of the unpopular positions the U.S. has often been left hanging with, and give less recruiting material to terrorists who argue that we are imperialistic invaders who only want their oil and resources. The tax code needs an overhaul. I would like to get more experiments running in the states, and the legislation happy Congress of the 20th century made state-by-state experiments much less likely or effective.
Don't get me wrong -- he scares me. I don't mind getting rid of the Department of Education (No Child Left Behind made it a liability, anyway, in my book), but I am ambivalent about the Fed, and I like the EPA and the FDA. I think his drastic policies would be likely to throw the world into a deep recession. I don't think Congress will go along with much of it, though, so he will only be left with the (non-trivial) powers of Commander-in-Chief and vetoer. He’ll use those powers to push an extreme agenda of personal liberty … then we’ll get someone in there, after his single term, who will balance the force again.
Of course, the chances of him getting the nod from Republicans is extremely slight, given his foreign policy tendencies (which many on the nationalistic side would say are "blame America") and given his lack of desire to legislate the bedroom.
Here’s what I like about President Obama: (1) He kills terrorists; (2) he is getting us out of the unending craziness that is Iraq; and (3) he takes nuanced views on most issues, meaning he is practical and not an ideologue. Though many (quite obviously incorrectly) think he does not understand the Constitution, he was actually a professor of Con Law – but “he does not understand,” what most really mean is that his interpretation of the Constitution is different from theirs (which is usually some sort of pure text, four corners approach … not unreasonable, but certainly not the only approach to interpreting the document; as Chief Justice Marshall famously said, “we must always remember that this is a Constitution we are expounding”; it is a set of guidelines and aspirations, designed to be flexible).
I also like that he is beginning to go after some of the perpetrators of fraud and fiduciary failure from the housing and banking debacles. It is close to too little, too late, but … at least it’s something.1) Bill Clinton. Okay, so, the obvious problem here is that it would require a constitutional amendment for him to even run; once he did, he would have to mount a campaign against an incumbent President who is employing his wife. Ha. So, obviously this is not going to happen. But he is still my favorite candidate, and the one against whom others will be measured. Why? Because he should be almost everyone's favorite candidate. He is the only President within my lifetime to balance the budget. He is the only one to shrink the federal government. He made -- and, importantly, ENFORCED -- trade agreements throughout the world. He reformed welfare. He got millions out of poverty, prepared us to save Social Security, and readied us for the Information Age. He also got closer to killing Bin Laden than anyone following him (prior to Obama succeeding) ... before most people knew the name, and during the worst crisis of his Presidency (remember how it was compared to the movie _Wag the Dog_? Yeah, that was Bin Laden.)
Bill Clinton communicates so well, so empathetically, that the world listens. He is so well informed that, when people would come to brief him on situations, he would often already know more about it than the briefers. As he joked, he should be the Tea Party's favorite candidate, as he balanced the budget and it was projected that, under his policies, the national debt (the WHOLE DEBT, not just the yearly deficit) would have been paid off by 2013 -- next year.
For almost every metric, people of all stripes were better off, long term, under the Clinton administration than before or since.So, if we pass the Amendment, and he runs, he has my vote. And I bet he would win, even as a vegan with 20 extra years under his belt.
2) Hillary Clinton. If you can't get Bill, how about Hillary? Because I am so enamored with Bill, I didn't mention this part, but either way you get a two-fer -- definitely the most politically competent First Spouse in the history of the nation, with formidable diplomatic powers and skills. Hillary was in the White House for 8 years with Bill, has served as a Senator and as Secretary of State, and is in general one of the most competent, toughest people on the planet. I voted for her 4 years ago, and I would vote for her today. I do not think she would be a carbon copy of Bill Clinton, but I do think she would follow his mantra of "Do what works." She has the experience to know what that is, and the political savvy to not have to waste time -- she would be prepared Day 1 to steer the U.S. and the world into a safer, healthier, more economically sound future.
Of course, if she ran, she would be viewed as a traitor by the Democrats, who already see Obama as vulnerable. Plus, she probably agreed not to run this time as a condition for accepting the mantle at Secretary of State. C'est la vie, eh?
3) (The surprise on the list) Ron Paul. WHAT?!? Yeah, I said it -- Ron Paul. Why? Because, though I think we need to balance things, his laser focus on personal liberty might, by pushing the pendulum hard left, bring us closer to balance than the big government administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama. His social conservatism doesn't bother me because he wants the government out of our bedrooms. His foreign policy, though extreme, would force our allies to step up and take some of the unpopular positions the U.S. has often been left hanging with, and give less recruiting material to terrorists who argue that we are imperialistic invaders who only want their oil and resources. The tax code needs an overhaul. I would like to get more experiments running in the states, and the legislation happy Congress of the 20th century made state-by-state experiments much less likely or effective.
Don't get me wrong -- he scares me. I don't mind getting rid of the Department of Education (No Child Left Behind made it a liability, anyway, in my book), but I am ambivalent about the Fed, and I like the EPA and the FDA. I think his drastic policies would be likely to throw the world into a deep recession. I don't think Congress will go along with much of it, though, so he will only be left with the (non-trivial) powers of Commander-in-Chief and vetoer. He’ll use those powers to push an extreme agenda of personal liberty … then we’ll get someone in there, after his single term, who will balance the force again.
Here’s what I like about President Obama: (1) He kills terrorists; (2) he is getting us out of the unending craziness that is Iraq; and (3) he takes nuanced views on most issues, meaning he is practical and not an ideologue. Though many (quite obviously incorrectly) think he does not understand the Constitution, he was actually a professor of Con Law – but “he does not understand,” what most really mean is that his interpretation of the Constitution is different from theirs (which is usually some sort of pure text, four corners approach … not unreasonable, but certainly not the only approach to interpreting the document; as Chief Justice Marshall famously said, “we must always remember that this is a Constitution we are expounding”; it is a set of guidelines and aspirations, designed to be flexible).
5) Huntsman. Okay, I don’t really know much about him. But he seems reasonable, relatively consistent, and disliked but many of the extreme right wingers, and that is enough to put him as my next choice.
6) Mitt Romney. He is a Massachusetts Republican, which makes him close to a Democrat. You can see that in his approach to healthcare and his appointments. I don’t think the Tea Party will let him go as centrist as he would like, but he does not seem to be trying to push a social agenda, and I do like the fact that he understands the business world.7) Newt Gingrich. He’s a complete jerk, but he is incredibly intelligent and could get some things accomplished in his first couple of years (until the Democrats retook the House and/or the Senate). He also does not have a strong social agenda.
8) Write in of someone else. I refuse to vote for the other Republican candidates, all of whom seem to think that big government should be out of corporate boardrooms but inside individuals’ bedrooms.As an interesting aside, after Romney wins the nomination, I predict he will approach Mike Huckabee, who has a few aspects that will be helpful: 1) loved by social conservatives, 2) can pull in the South, 3) great name recognition and proven political prowess, and 4) somewhat populist, which might help pull in a few independents. There may be other candidates that might help Romney win some important areas (such as Santorum with non-Illinois portions of the Rust Belt), so I could definitely be wrong here … but I would be astounded if he is not on the short list. Newt would be the best President of the Senate, but he would likely be a liability to Romney more than a help. Paul would say no. Bachmann is a crazed loon. Huntsman is another Mormon. I suppose Perry is another possibility, but I think he would be even more self-destructive than Newt.
So, that’s how I have broken down the voting for this time. I am pretty sure I’ll get my 4th choice. I don't think any Republican has a shot at beating him, barring some slip on his part ... which is unlikely for "No Drama Obama."What do you think?
You are a wonderful writer and I love this post.
ReplyDelete