John Edwards

Evaluating John Edwards for endorsement has been something of a challenge. I tried to maintain my objectivity in the matter, but I am surely swayed by the fact that I liked him as a candidate in 2004. In an attempt to be objective I found myself looking for reasons to not endorse him for 2008.

After much searching I concluded that John Edwards is a better candidate now that he was in 2004. He appears to have learned much from his previous presidential run while maintaining the optimist and idealism which were some of his strengths last time. While I do not agree with every one of his positions on every issue I think that he has the character to make a good president and the ability to bring this nation together in ways that would be impossible for some other candidates.

He is honest enough to admit that his desire for universal health care is probably not attainable without a tax increase. This kind of candor before being elected bodes well for any potential public servant.

I made the decision harder than necessary. In the end, I easily endorse John Edwards for President in 2008. He is a capable candidate and I believe that he would make an admirable president.

Yes, I'm Still Alive

It's been a while since I've posted here and I am going to work harder to change that. Things have been very busy at home and at work lately. Right now I would like to give a few projections of what is happening and will be happening with me and the blog.

The candidates have been filing in and I have not kept up. Here is the current list of candidates and the order in which I will be making my endorsements (this is based on the order they filed to the best of my knowledge): John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Sam Brownback, Christine Smith, Joe Biden, and Duncan Hunter.

I am personally taking a more active interest in local and state politics right now. I am actually going to meetings on current issues, such as the Mountain View Corridor highway that UDOT is looking to build. I believe that politics should be more local and less national so I am trying to make my own actions (and commentary) reflect that belief. I will be posting more on those issues, although I will still be covering national issues and races as well. The limit is that I will not cover races that I can't vote in - so no coverage of a controversial race for governor in another state even if it is making headlines around the nation.

I have also felt the need to move from blogger again. It's time to revive my personal site so I will be moving to Wordpress again and have it hosted at davidjmiller.org. I already own the domain, but it has been dormant for a while. I'm not going to rush the move, I want to import my posts from blogger, but I may move forward without that.

I am actually considering the possibilities of participating with parties and/or candidates at some level and I may finally be ready to donate somewhere. That's a huge change for me. While I love talking/writing on the subject I am ready to do more than just pontificate.

So, life is great right now despite my silence here. I am hoping to export the energy that I am finding from that to help make a difference in the things that I have always talked about.

Are Children Dumber Today Than They Used To Be?

Lest I get in hot water with all the parents out there, my short answer is "no." Now let me explain the question.

I recently learned of a bill coming before the Utah Senate which would fund all day kindergarten throughout the state. Perhaps I am thinking of my own kids only, but I am convinced that all day kindergarten is not helpful to most students. For those who would point out that it is optional and not required I will say two things: first, when will that change, because our trend is towards adding requirements such as these to combat falling achievement results; and second, This post is not just about all day kindergarten. (Now on to what it is about.)

Forty years ago we had fewer after school programs, less technology in schools, and less emphasis on standardized testing. We also had higher literacy rates, better scores on math and science tests, and probably higher graduation rates (I could be wrong there - I have no data). If we add those two things together we should come to the conclusion that after school programs, more technology and emphasis on standardized tests are not the solution to the problem facing our education system. (They are great for the bottom line of some technology companies and some education companies who specialize in testing or after school programs.)

I don't mean to imply that having computers and other technology in schools is bad, or that tests make kids dumber (I know some people who make either of those arguments) but we should see that they do not solve the underlying problem.

Another trend that I think has a greater impact on our education system than the technology, tests, and extra programs is this - the vast majority of students today come from one of two kinds of homes: single parent homes or two income homes. This was not the case forty years ago. The real problem confronting our society and manifesting itself in our education system is that children are not getting the care from involved parents that they used to get. They are getting more activities and government sponsored daycare solutions and less of mom or dad sitting down to help with homework, attending parent-teacher conferences, being aware of what's happening in their lives, or even playing with them in the back yard. Our problem is homes which are nothing more than places to sleep and families which are all about blood relations with no thought about relationships.

Programs like all day kindergarten make it that much easier for parents to decide that they can both work and let the government raise their children. I admit that some people are in a position where they need outside help, but in most cases it is a matter of convenience rather than need. Society should not be burdened by the financial and social cost of funding a convenience. For those who have needs, we should be looking for ways to help their needs without making it convenient for others to go joyriding at our expense.

Dennis Kucinich

This has been an interesting investigation. I knew, based on the fact that Dennis Kucinich ran in 2004, that this was a candidate who was serious. I found that personally I could probably like Dennis. His position in opposition to Iraq has been a consistent hallmark for Dennis so there was no doubt in my mind that it was not a matter of popularity.

Looking at his positions on various issues, I am forced to conclude that Kucinich is not the right man for the job in 2008. He wants to decriminalize marijuana, put us in more debt by guaranteeing a full retirement through social security at age 65 for everyone, leave NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and he thinks that the federal government can guarantee a quality education through college for all Americans.

I was surprised to discover, after all those points of disagreement, that his position on abortion is quite similar to mine. He believes that abortion is a blight on society but that there are some situations where it should be a medical option. Combining that with a skepticism that the congress would ever bring the abortion decision to an up or down vote, Kucinich believe that there are many things that we can and should do to help reduce the number of abortions in our nation (including abstinence education).

Dennis Kucinich is a candidate for all the right reasons and I believe him to be a man of integrity, but I do not endorse him for President in 2008.

Where is the Line?

This is an honest question. In the last 24 hours we have heard the President outline his plan to send more troops to Iraq. We have also heard many people call for various forms of resistance to that plan. John Edwards has called on Congress to refuse to fund the plan. Tom Vilsack has called on the Iowa legislature and city and state governments everywhere to pass resolutions opposed to escalating the war. I have also seen statements by Dennis Kucinich, Steve Kubby and Robert Milnes starkly opposing this move. All of these men are expected to be candidates for President in 2008, and I'm sure there are other potential candidates whose statements have not come to my attention.

Contrary to what some people may think if they have read my post, Divine Strake, and the comments that follow, my natural inclination is to support my leaders. I remember being uneasy when we started in Iraq, but I was not really opposed to the war until 2006.

This is what had lead me to this question. All those candidates have a much easier time than the President because they can make statements, but he has to make decisions. We will see the results of his decisions, unlike the results of their statements. I agree with their statements that increasing troop levels will not improve the situation in Iraq.

So while I disagree with out commander-in-chief I want to support him as much as possible. If there was a way to oppose him such that we could prevent him from executing this decision I think it would be better for our nation, on the other hand, if we openly oppose him but the decision is executed we risk making our global enemies more bold as they see that we do not all support our leaders.

What is the line between supporting and disagreeing with our leaders? There is a time for discussion and a time for solidarity. Which time is this? (and when does it switch to the other time?)

Comments on Do Not Call

I got some good comments from Jason and Denise after my post on the National Do Not Call Registry. I got permission to post some of the comment.

What happens if we follow the personal responsibility road a little further?

In the above example, personal responsibility has to be taken in order to get on the do-not-call registry. However, the program is still a government bureaucracy funded at taxpayer expense (unless of course fines for non-compliance fund the program).

To look further even than these avenues - if a large majority of individuals would refuse to do business with companies that engage in telemarketing (and spam, for that matter), their work would become less profitable, and they would find less intrusive ways to advertise. They only call and e-mail now because it's working. If they stop making money at it, they'll stop doing it.

I'm not exactly complaining about the do-not-call list - I'm on it myself. I like what it does. However, I do recognize that so much of what we, as Americans complain about (such as unwanted phone solicitation), need not be brought before our local or federal government. We are big kids and can handle these things on our own.

Much, if not most, of what government does these days can be handled by private citizens taking personal responsibility, by private organizations working to improve society, and by private entrepreneurial businesses seeking to make a buck by providing a wanted service for pay.

That sounds like the kind of small government that we really need. Let people take responsibility for themselves and their actions and not make everything an avenue for government involvement.

Divine Strake

I don't know how many people are aware of the Divine Strake event which is a test of the effectiveness of weapons against an underground tunnel complex. The event is supposed to be taking place in Nevada this year after being authorized by Congress in 2002. Back then it was a response to the unsuccessful efforts to go after Osama bin Laden in Bora Bora. Now I'm not sure why we are still pouring money into such a project.

Since 2002 we should have learned that our weapons are not our weak point in the kind of warfare we are likely to be engaging in now or in the future. If there is a military need, it is probably along the lines of increasing intelligence gathering operations and improving protective measures for our military personnel in the face of unpredictable enemies and unconventional tactics.

We should also know that we are not facing enemies who are going to be deterred no matter how effective our weapons are. Just as our soldiers would consider it to be an honor to die in the cause of preserving freedom, our enemies fight for ideologies in which death is an honor and not something to be avoided.

I think it's time for the government leave their cold-war thinking behind, and even their 2002 (early-in-the-war-on-terror) thinking behind and stop throwing money after projects such as this which do not, in fact, make us safer, or improve our military. If you feel the same way, write to your representative. You may also want to write to your senators. To make it easy, I have gathered the contact information for the senators in Utah (downwind from the test site) and Nevada (where the test site is located) since they would have the most vested interest in this.

Orrin Hatch(UT)

Harry Reid(NV)

Bob Bennett(UT)

John Ensign(NV)

Holidays

I'm guessing that it will be normal for me to post less often during the holidays. Hopefully 10 day breaks will not be normal.

Besides the obvious Christmas festivities and work, I have been doing very good with my running until this week. Sometime on Christmas day my right ankle began to hurt. I went running on the 26th and, although running was fine, I noticed that my ankle got worse. My Achilles tendon began to swell some so I have been staying off it for the last few days. I don't know how it happened, but I have to assume that it is related to the running. Hopefully resting it this week will allow me to get back to training sooner than if I pushed harder. I'm going to give it a try with a short run tomorrow.

I'm still trying to find the balance of what I write about here. I was doing lots of candidate endorsements before the break, but I want a better balance. I have found that there are two new candidates who have filed with the FEC since I last wrote. I guess I had better get caught up again because it looks like we are likely to have even more in the coming weeks.

Last night I got a call from my Grandpa and we got to catch up. I had not talked to him for a few months as he has been busy with his new wife trying to keep up with their combined 48 grandchildren. I don't know about her grandchildren, but I realized that of his 24 grandchildren half of them were married so we're all getting spread out a bit.

I can only imagine how busy it would get trying to keep up with 48 grandchildren. Anyway, it was nice to catch up with him, that's why I decided to do a little catching up here.

Michael Smith

With positions such as the desire to institute the draft for the Iraq war, I was not sure if I could consider Michael Smith as a legitimate candidate. Further investigation showed me a man who is as realistic about his candidacy as he is serious about it - neither he nor I fail to recognize that his candidacy is limited to his home state of Oregon.

I commend him as a person for trying to do something, but I can't endorse him as a candidate.

UPDATE 12/29/06: In case anyone sees this without seeing the comments - Michael Smith has dropped his position of supporting a draft. I think that was a wise move.

George Phillies

I have finally found another candidate whom I can endorse unequivocally. His name is George Phillies. He has a solid understanding of politics and a clear agenda which can appeal to a majority of voters.

George is highly educated (PhD in Physics from MIT) and should have a good understanding of a variety of Americans since he has lived on the east coast (Massachusetts) the west coast (California) and the mid-west (Michigan).

As I said before - I endorse George Phillies for President.

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel is a candidate with lots of experience in politics as an ex-senator from Alaska. He even tried to get nominated as a vice-presidential candidate earlier in his career.

I heartily endorse Mike Gravel as a candidate for President, with the hope that he might help to keep the discussion from becoming stale. Realistically, he has no chance of getting on the ballot. There are two reasons for this: first, he's from Alaska which only has 3 electoral votes; second, he is 76 years old. By the time he could get elected he would be 78. To put that in perspective - Ronald Reagan was our oldest president and he was 77 when he finished his second term. Mike Gravel would be 78 before he started his first term and would be 8082 (I got lazy - as noted in the comments) before his term ended. We will never have an octogenarian as President unless half the population of the United States is over 50.

Steve Kubby

Steve Kubby is running for president. That's the only "positive" thing I can say here. Actually, I was wrong, he has the best looking MySpace page I have ever seen - it actually fails to look like psychedelic vision out of a drug-induced dream.

He waves the flag of his home state by giving plenty of time to his position related to medical marajuana. (We are a long way from that being a major issue in national politics.) He advocates an immediate pullout from Iraq and decries illegal immigration.

In short, Kubby is serious about his candidacy, but he is not a serious candidate. If he became the president, the United States would begin to look as quirky and unstable to the outside world as Venezuela has come to look under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. I don't mean to imply that Kubby is like Chavez, only that he is equally far from the mainstream.

While I think that most voters would like to see a change in our political system, they don't want this kind of change. Kubby will get up to 5% of the vote in California and not more than 1% in any other state where he can get on the ballot.

I cannot even think of endorsing such a "candidate".

John Cox

I was not sure what to expect from John Cox when I started me research. I had never heard of him, and without any of the titles in front of his name that are so common among the well known candidates (Governor, Senator, Representative) I half expected to find that he was one of those people who has a message but will be happy if they can just get that message on the evening news sometime because of their campaign.

What I found was a very serious, dedicated candidate who really believes in his message. He has years of experience in various political areas, just none that are in the spotlight so much as where better known candidates have usually been.

Instead of finding a man who had ideas and dreams, I found a man who had experience in making things happen in his own life and in the lives of people around him. I believe that he is a candidate who will not be overwhelmed by the office if he should win the presidency.

Having been pleasantly surprised in my findings, I still had to decide if I would endorse John Cox for president. My conclusion is that - although I do believe that he could fill the office of the president - I do not believe that he is the type of man that this country needs at this time.

His tone is slightly too divisive and idealistic. We need someone who can be grounded in their morals and pragmatic in their direction. Some of John's ideas are not pragmatic. Others are good, but not focused on the issues that are the most important to us today.

More to Come

I just discovered a good listing of candidates and potential candidates for 2008. The real surprise came as I saw that there are two Republicans, two Democrats, and two Libertarians who have all filed with the Federal Election Commission as candidates. That is the standard I use for choosing when a candidate should be researched for endorsement purposes. The list also states who has formed exploratory committees and others who have shown that they are seriously considering candidacy.

Of the six official filings, I have covered one candidate so far. While I will not list the party of any candidate that I endorse, I feel that it is only fair to cover these first six candidates without grouping them in parties. I will jump from party to party for the remaining five candidates. Thereafter, I will endorse (or not) candidates in the order that I discover that they have filed for candidacy with the FEC.

I have also concluded that I may choose, in some third-party cases to research candidates for endorsement before they file with the FEC. In any such case I will clearly state that they have not filed for candidacy.

Tom Vilsack

Tom Vilsack is finishing his second term as the governor of Iowa. He did not run for re-election. My research indicates that Vilsack had a vision for his state and in his eight years in office he succeeded in implementing that vision to a great degree. This suggests the ability to focus on a goal and work with others to make it happen. This shows leadership.

In my searching, Vilsack came across as a candidate with ideas and experience who is ready to do more than talk about what should be done. Rather than forming an exploratory committee, he made his decision to run and filed his papers for candidacy. This suggests that he will take action once he makes a decision.

The language of his dialog is positive and issue oriented. I hope to see this kind of campaigning continue when there is a specific opponent to campaign against. In other words, I hope to see more of campaigning for issues and ideas and less of campaigning against other candidates.

I endorse Tom Vilsack for President.

Endorsements

I had not intended to suspend posting until I had done some research on the governor of Iowa, but that is how life played out so here, after four days, is some insight into the endorsement process. I freely admit that, even as an independent voter, I am not free from bias. The first time I hear about a candidate choosing to run for president I will probably have an idea, based on their position and what I have heard previously, of whether I expect they will receive an endorsement from me. For example, with Governor Vilsack I had heard very little about him which suggested a lack of showmanship. The fact that he was a two term governor of a state which was not known to be particularly liberal or conservative suggested an experienced public servant who was not a polarizing force. I would initially guess that I would endorse such a candidate.

On the other hand, I will openly admit that most third party candidates are likely to have a harder time getting an endorsement from me based partially on the wacky ideas I have heard from a variety of third party candidates over the years. My experience suggests that the majority of third party candidates have an agenda or a specific issue and lack the propensity to work with others. On top of that, most of them don't honestly expect to have a shot at winning and it shows in the way they campaign to their niche supporters.

At these early stages of campaigning, my endorsements have the possibility of changing as a result of new information. That being said, I am not at all opposed to getting through the primaries with candidates in each party that I endorse. In fact, I hope that the candidates who win the primaries from each party are candidates whom I can endorse.

One final caveat, when I endorse someone it should not be construed as an endorsement of a party. I never vote for a presidential party, I vote for a president. If I endorse Governor Vilsack it says nothing about the Democratic Party. If I endorse Governor Bush it is an endorsement for Bush, not for the Republican Party. (Honestly I do not expect Jeb Bush to run. I used him as an example because I do not want to suggest an endorsement for a candidate who has not yet chosen to run. In the case of Governor Vilsack, I will be posting the results of my research presently.)

Looking Forward

I just passed 100 posts to this blog in just over 3 months since I started it. It was fun to see that. Despite that milestone I still feel like I am developing a feel for where this blog will go.

I have noticed that I enjoy writing politically oriented content when I find news of a political nature. Maybe that is because I am interested in a wide range of political topics and in political participation in general. With the official announcement today that Tom Vilsack would seek the Democratic presidential nomination for 2008, I have decided on one thing I will be doing with this blog in the future. I have decided that, for each person who announces their candidacy officially, I will research the candidate and make an endorsement for every candidate who I feel would make a good president. These endorsements will not indicate who I will be voting for (that has not been decided yet) but will indicate who I think deserves votes.

I will do this for any candidate who is running (not those who look like they will run) from any party so long as my research indicates that they could be a good president. In other words, don't expect to hear anything about the likes of General Zod.

Look for my endorsement, or anti-endorsement if I think they would not be a good president, on any candidate I hear about within a week of when I learn of their official candidacy. If you hear about a candidate that I have not yet listed please let me know.

Partisan Playground

Three days after the elections I get an email calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It sounded a lot like playground politics. "You impeached our president so now that we are in control of congress we will impeach yours." I thought it was typical of staunch partisans that they would exaggerate their position from the outset. The email started with:

"On Election Day, the American people voted overwhelmingly for change." (emphasis mine)

I wonder about the threshold they use for "overwhelming." The fact is that if every race that remains undecided were to fall to the Democrats there would be 42 seats that changed hands in the House and the Senate combined. That is only 8% of the 535 seats in Congress. Only 6% of the Senate changed and 10% of the House. That sounds like a vote for change, but not an overwhelming vote for change. In fact, 25% of the seats that changed were still in doubt after 24 hours. (All the numbers I am using assume that every seat still in doubt goes blue.) To make this vote less overwhelming, the talk now is how the incoming Democrat representative are pragmatic and populist more than liberal. We really don't know what to expect from this new Democrat controlled congress. See Update

I visited the forum where the email originated and found more level-headed thought being expressed. Things along the lines of, "President Bush deserves to be impeached, but it won't accomplish anything positive in the country, so don't bother."

Nancy Pelosi, likely the next Speaker of the House, has indicated that she will not pursue impeachment. Level-headed people from across the political spectrum will agree with her that impeachment is not a good course of action for the country at this time. The partisan impeachment proceedings against President Clinton should serve as proof of why we should not go down that road right now. At least when the Republican congress impeached Clinton they could be forgiven for having no memory of the last time we had an impeachment. This Democratic congress has no such excuse.

I looked around the forum site and they had a poll for people to vote on what they would like to see happen in the first 100 days of the new congress. They categorized the various suggestions. I discovered an interesting trend as I read the options. I found that I agreed or disagreed with them on a category by category basis.

• Constitution & Courts
• I disagree heartily with almost every option
  
• I especially disagree with the constitutional amendments they propose
  
• Economy, Business, Labor
• I agree with some of the options
  
• I am undecided on some of the options
• I disagree with a couple of the options
• Elections
• I agree with almost all the options
• I disagree with one option and think a couple of options are redundant
  
• Energy & Environment
• I am undecided on the majority of the options
  
• Foreign & Military Policy
• Many of the options sound like vague ideals rather than solid plans
• I agree with their positions on torture
  
• Government & Congress
• I agree with most of the options
  
• Investigations
• Lots of redundancy related to the Iraq war
• Many of the options sound like they are living in the past
  
• Media
• Sounds like a bunch of ways to expand government
  
• Social Policy
• Sounds exactly like the Democratic party line
  

This got me wondering what kind of people were running the forum. The answer came in a different poll they had. This one asked who they would vote for in 2008 for president. The answer was overwhelmingly Al Gore. He got more than 1/3 of the votes with 13 candidates in the poll. Hilary Clinton (supposedly the front runner) was not even in second place on this poll, she got less than 1/8 of the votes. So these are Gore Democrats. This is nothing against Al Gore, he merely represents one faction of the Democratic party. The question is, what do the Pelosi Democrats think, or what do the Dean Democrats (the official party leadership) think? Lest anyone see this as bias, Republican factions include the McCain Republicans, Frist Republicans, and Mehlman Republicans.

UPDATE 11/14: I just found confirmation of what I had said about how overwhelming this vote for change was.

The scale of this loss was on par with the post-war average for such elections: close to 30 House seats versus the average of 32, and likely six Senate seats compared to the average of eight.

In elections during which the president’s popularity was low because of war, scandal or recession, however, the average is 47 House seats and eight Senate seats.

This "overwhelming vote for change" was about average, if not a little below average for the current situation.

Getting Answers to Old Questions

I just remembered something I wrote back in September. Tuesday made it possible to answer some questions I asked clear back then. I had said that "between the presidency and the two houses of congress each of the major parties should be in control of at least one of the bodies - thus forcing the various governmental bodies to compromise in order to make things happen." We now have Republicans in control of the White House and Democrats in control of the House and the Senate.

I had asked, "would this administration be better if their party did not control both houses of congress?" An early analysis of that question came in the New York Times today. From the article:

“You’re seeing the George Bush who has always been adept at playing the hand he is dealt,” said Charlie Black, a Republican strategist with close ties to the White House.

Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman and lobbyist, put it this way: “I’ve never thought that George Bush was a rigid ideologue; I’ve never thought that he was a hardened partisan. He is a businessman first, and in business you don’t spend a lot of time crying about changed circumstances. You figure out quickly how to adapt, and that’s what he’s doing.”

Certainly this does not answer whether this "M.B.A. president" can make things work with a Democratic congress, but we'll find out.

I also said that "those in the House have some incentive to do something because they will face re-election in another two years." The New York Times article adds another incentive for Democrats to work with Bush:

“Their whole theme has been the do-nothing Congress,” Mr. Black, the Republican strategist, said. “Now, if they get in there and make themselves vulnerable to that charge, it hurts them in ’08. He knows that they have an incentive to get things done, and he’s going to take advantage of that.”

If anything is to happen, the president must move toward the center. I still hope, as I said in September, that this will force the Republican Party to come back toward the center. Having lost the House and the Senate, I hope they will have the motivation to do so. They can hardly pretend that this was just some small setback.

Code for Old Blog Tools

I thought I would add the html code from some blog elements that I am putting away but which I may want to use again.

Here is the html code for the election projections:

<a href="http://www.electoral-vote.com/"><img alt="Click for www.electoral-vote.com" src="http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Icons/ev-small.png" border="0" height="72" width="72" /> <img alt="Click for www.electoral-vote.com" src="http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Icons/ev-small-house.png" border="0" height="72" width="72" /></a>