Separation of Powers

As we move on to immigration, the new theory of the separation of powers that is being implemented by Pres. Obama is: 

1.  Give the Congress the opportunity to pass the laws the president wants passed,

2.  If they fail at their job, then the President will do it for them.

I am particularly impressed that "not doing what the President wants"  is referred to - sometimes implicitly but sometimes explicitly - as a "failure".  Apparently the press does not notice this oddity.

SCOTUS has said (by 9-0) that the President is not the agency that decides whether the Senate is in recess or not.  However, this has apparently not slowed him down.  I wonder what would.
 

Historical note: The Gettysburg Address

Some things bear repeating:

At the Battle of Gettysburg on July 1-3, 1863 a hundred and seventy thousand men launched themselves at each other and suffered almost 50,000 casualties. Lee was repelled and returned to Virginia. At the site on this day, later that year, the noted orator, Edward Everett, held forth for over two hours on this momentous occasion. 

Abraham Lincoln was there too, and before the photographers had finished setting up for him, he had completed the following remarks. In C-span fashion we note that his remarks lasted for about two minutes.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

Just a handshake.

The American nation has labeled Iran a principle source of terrorism in the world.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is the head of state and highest ranking political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran's current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei.

The number two man in Iran is its, President Hassan Rouhani, who was required to obtain the permission of Khamenei in order to even be eligible to run for the office he currently holds.

Apparently, someone suggested that Iran's number two, Rouhani, should chat with our number one, Obama. Obama, agreed.

Rouhani then backs out and leaves Obama with his "hand out for a shake" that never came.

Some say the symbolism of such things is irrelevant.

I disagree.

Constitution

One of the framers' fears.

Obama and Egypt

I want to get this post up now because you are going to shortly see a lot of howling about how Obama is siding with (gasp) Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which is a Muslim religious-political organization.

Briefly the Brotherhood won the (close) elections and put President Morsi in office.  He apparently did not govern very democratically and was moving to "permatize" his power.

The Egyptian military overthrew him.

That required that we reduce our support for Egypt.

Obama temporized for several weeks about stopping aid (which is a cornerstone of the Camp David Accords which established peace between Egypt and Israel) and is now moving in that direction.

So - as usual in the Middle East - we have easy choices:
         a)  The Muslim Brotherhood which was moving away from democracy, or
         b)  the military which staged a coup and has already killed hundreds.

Sometimes I think that I know what a president should do.
Sometimes - like Jose Jimenez - I am glad that:  "It's naa my job."

You will soon hear that this means that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer or "worse".

With respect to that, I say poppycock.

Obama vs Lincoln

By   NICHOLAS QUINN ROSENKRANZ

The Obama administration announced last month via blog post that the president was unilaterally suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate—notwithstanding the clear command of the law. President Obama's comments about it on Aug. 9—claiming that "the normal thing [he] would prefer to do" is seek a "change to the law"—then added insult to constitutional injury. It also offers a sharp contrast with a different president who also suspended the law.
On April 27, 1861, President Lincoln unilaterally authorized his commanding general to suspend the writ of habeas corpus so that he could detain dangerous rebels in the early days of the Civil War. Lincoln's order was constitutionally questionable. The Constitution provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
A rebellion was in progress, so suspension was permissible. But the Constitution doesn't specify who can suspend the writ in such circumstances. Since the Suspension Clause appears in Article I of the Constitution, which is predominantly about the powers of Congress, there is a strong argument that only Congress can suspend the habeas writ.
Lincoln's order was legally dubious, but what he did next showed remarkable constitutional rectitude. On July 4, 1861, he delivered a solemn message to Congress, in which he did everything possible to square his action with the Constitution. In this message, he set forth the best possible constitutional arguments that he had unilateral power to suspend the writ. These arguments may have been wrong, but they were serious, and they were presented seriously, in good faith.

Lincoln also made a powerful argument about the necessity of his action. Even if he was wrong, and only Congress had the power to suspend the writ, surely the circumstances had to be considered: Congress was in recess and the South was in open rebellion. "The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the states," Lincoln said to Congress.
Should Lincoln have refrained from suspending habeas, if doing so meant that the republic would fall? As he put it: "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Lincoln also invited Congress to ratify his actions: "Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress." On Aug, 6, 1861, Congress did indeed retroactively ratify "all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President . . . respecting the army and navy of the United States." And later, on March 3, 1863, Congress expressly authorized the president to suspend the writ.
Scholars have debated whether Lincoln exceeded his power by suspending the writ and whether Congress's retroactive ratification cured any constitutional infirmity. Whatever one's answer, this is a case of a president—himself a constitutional lawyer—trying, under impossible circumstances, to be as faithful to the Constitution as possible.
Contrast all of this with President Obama's announcement that he is unilaterally suspending part of the Affordable Care Act. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. And like Lincoln's action, Mr. Obama's was a unilateral executive suspension of the law. But in every other way, the president's behavior could not have been more different from Lincoln's.
First, Lincoln's action was at least arguably constitutional, while Mr. Obama's is not. The Constitution has a provision for suspending habeas. It has no general provision for executive suspension of laws. English kings used to suspend laws, but the Framers rejected that practice: The president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Second, Lincoln volunteered an articulate constitutional defense of his action. Mr. Obama seemed annoyed when the New York Times dared to ask him the constitutional question. When the reporter asked whether he had consulted with lawyers about the legality of the mandate's delay, he declined to answer.
As for Republican congressmen who had the temerity to question his authority, Mr. Obama said only: "I'm not concerned about their opinions—very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." Mr. Obama made no mention of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin—a Democrat, a lawyer and one of the authors of ObamaCare—who said: "This was the law. How can they change the law?"
Third, Lincoln offered a brilliant and compelling argument about the necessity of his action, given that the republic was in imminent danger. Mr. Obama's official version of the constitutional-necessity argument was nothing more than a breezy blog post attributed to an assistant secretary for tax policy. The title? "Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner."
Fourth, and most strikingly, Lincoln promptly looked to Congress to ratify his unilateral action. Congress agreed with Lincoln, and the president welcomed and signed new legislation. President Obama says only that he wishes he could follow the same course. Last week, he said he would like to "simply call up the Speaker" of the House to request a "change to the law" that would achieve his desired delay.
In fact, as the president knows, he doesn't even need to pick up the phone: On July 17, the House of Representatives passed the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (with 229 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting in favor). This would authorize President Obama's desired suspension of the law, just as Congress ratified Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.
But unlike Lincoln, President Obama doesn't welcome this congressional ratification. He has called the House bill that fixes the constitutional problem he created "unnecessary," and he threatened to veto it. Why? Because the House also passed a companion bill that would delay the individual mandate too. For political reasons, the president doesn't want to be in the inconvenient position of signing one bill that would give companies a reprieve from ObamaCare, while vetoing another that would grant individuals the same delay. The Democratic-controlled Senate will quietly kill the House bill and save Mr. Obama the awkwardness of having to veto it.
Faced with military exigencies, Lincoln did everything possible to enlist Congress's support—and thus to follow the Constitution. Mr. Obama, faced with mere political and bureaucratic inconveniences, spurned Congress's support and flouted the Constitution.

Mr. Rosenkranz is a professor of law at Georgetown and a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. 

"to skyfall"

It seems clear to me that we need a new verb.  It describes a well known operation, but as far as I know there is no word for it.  It happens in any organization which receives an order to cut some of its operations.  There are (at least) two ways to deal with such a requirement.

"to skyfall" - Definition:   If one is called upon to make budget cuts, then to skyfall the response is to claim that if the cuts are made, then "the sky will fall" and "armageddon will be upon us".

For example suppose you are the police chief and you have been asked to prepare for a 10% budget cut.

The first method, which might be called the honest one, is to propose cutting those things that you would actually quit doing if the reality of the cut comes to pass.  This would mean cutting the things that you do that you consider to be the least important.
In our example you might say well we will not get those new police cruisers that we were planning to get and we will make do with the ones we have for another year.

The second method is to "skyfall" it.   In our example, you might say that without that last 10% you will not be able to buy bullets for your guns and you will therefore not be able to  protect the city.  You might estimate the death of 12-15 police officers and 50 - 100 of the local citizenry.   You might say that, when you skyfall it, the sky is the limit because it is all BS anyway.

If you think that people who oppose budget cuts would not engage in such blatant dishonesty, then turn on the TV and watch your president try to stop a budget cut that he earlier proposed and signed into law.  It is embarassing.

Beyond the Pale with Obama

I have for some time intended to compose a list of those things that Obama is doing that are beyond the pale.
That is, not just things that I disagree with, but things which are beyond his legal authority to do.  This may  be a good time to begin this since one of them is in the news.

1.  Obama is using drones to kill American citizens without benefit of trial or any other judicial protections.  If you doubt it check out the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.  Persons selected for this fate are reviewed by a group in the Executive Department.  The president has quoted a congressional statute to justify this. The administration's response to the question of what protected the target's constitutional rights was that these were always considered in the meeting in which the target was designated to be killed!!  Those acquainted with the ACLU will not be surprised to learn that they have a problem with this.

I support Obama's extensive use of drones.  Al-Queda has stated that it is at war with us.  I accept that and therefore I believe that we are at war with al-Queda.  Therefore, I do not have any objection to members of al-Queda being targeted for killing without Constitutional considerations.  That includes American citizens who have clearly signed on al-Qaeda.  The president can do this based on war powers.

Now I understand that this may sound a bit contradictory.  It is not.  The difference is that I believe that this "interaction that we are having with al-Qaeda" is a war.  But for curious reasons the President does not want to call it a war.  Therefore he is not able use that justification.

What I believe is beyond the pale is not the targeted assassinations, but the claim that this is being done within the Constitution and without the use of war powers.  Based on previous comments to that effect, the President's position on this is ludicrous.

We will see if the current hearings on the new head of the CIA forces a change in his position.

I  believe that it will.

Hostages

The debt talks provide an ideal opportunity for the Democrats to pull out one of their current techniques.  It goes like this.

If the Republicans keep us from having what we want, then they are holding such and such “hostage.”  

This is a horrible technique because it attempts to delegitimize and dehumanize the opposition.  It is similar to the claim that anybody who supports abortion rights is for “killing babies.”  It is perhaps worse since it can be applied to anything.  

It is particularly pernicious coming from a president who, during campaigns, preaches that there are no red states and no blue states there are only the United States.

One measure of the independence of the media would be whether they supported this kind of talk which it poisons the well of the national debate.

Lincoln quotes

Today's quote November 15 was:  In early 1861, with the Civil War coming, Abraham Lincoln counted his assets and noted:
 “I should like to think that I have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

 Dan noted his appreciation in a comment to another post.  I thought I would give him a chance to put it here and add that it is one of my favorites.

Another of my favorite Lincoln quotes is one which is now appearing in the trailer to the new movie "Lincoln." It begins-- " I am the President of the United States, clothed in immense power, and I will have ..."

I have been told that the following distinction is trivial, but I offer it to you anyway.

I think that it is profound that he did not say some variation of  "I am the immensely powerful President of the United States and I will have ...." which would imply that he saw himself as someone who held his own great power.  What he actually said seems to me to suggest that he saw himself as an instrument whom the people had temporarily 'clothed' in their immense power.

To see the difference, imagine which choice would have been made by, say, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Lyndon Johnson.
(Slightly modified at 5:58.)

Raising Taxes vs Contributing More Revenue

I just watched an interview with Paul Ryan.  He came across to me as intelligent, knowledgeable, handsome, great hair (I am jealous), with a talent for changing the meaning of the interviewers question with his answer.  This last characteristic seems to be a must with all successful politicians.

I have one question though that is bugging me.  He and Romney are very critical of the President’s proposal to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans because it raises rates on many “small businesses” (to be clear I am not in favor of it right now either, or any other plan that takes more money out of the economy).  Ryan described his and Romney’s plan as being much better because it lowers rates on everyone.  When pressed for exactly how this helps decrease the deficit he said that they planned to do away with some “loopholes” (also known as deductions) that benefit the wealthiest, by in large, and therefore they would be “contributing more revenue” than they are now.

Huh?  How is making the wealthy pay more by lowering rates but doing away with deductions that will result in the wealthy paying more tax superior to simply raising rates on those same wealthy resulting in them paying more tax.  Since they have refused to tell us, or even give us a hint, what deductions they are planning to do away with, it’s impossible to say if Ryan’s description is accurate or not.

But forgive me if I am suspicious.  Why would the wealthy be so enthusiastic about the Romney/Ryan plan, which will result in them paying more taxes through doing away with deductions, and at the same time be so adamantly against a plan that would result in them paying more taxes through a rise in the highest tax bracket rate?  That was the comparison that Ryan presented in the interview, as I understood it; lower rates with less deductions vs. higher rates, both resulting in increased taxes for the highest earners.  Until we know specifically what deductions are going to be done away with there is no way to compare bottom line results, a person’s tax bill under one plan vs. a person’s tax bill under the other plan.  I feel the old bait and switch coming on if they win the election.  The phrase “pig in a poke” comes to mind.

Please feel free to correct my understanding if my interpretation of the Romney/Ryan plan with regard to income taxes is incorrect.

think highly of him

.
The following comes from the editorial a-big-ten-strategy-for-romney by George Will:

As Holman W. Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal astutely writes, “Obama’s great political talent has been his knack for granting his admirers permission to think highly of themselves for thinking highly of him.”

Perhaps this is the way it looks to someone who's last president made it hard for you to "think highly of him".
.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

.
The title of this post is from Section 3 of Article II of the constitution which lists the presidents powers and responsibilities.


From a story in the Washington Post whose title is:   U.S. will stop deporting some illegal immigrants who came here as children
... 
On Friday, Obama seemed to find a middle ground, granting a two-year reprieve from deportation for certain eligible immigrants but not granting them legal status.
“These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said during an afternoon Rose Garden appearance. “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.”
...
You will probably hear a lot about this from folks like Charles Krauthammer (who calls it rampant lawlessness) and those who wonder:  Since when does the president have the discretion to enforce or not enforce laws?

I have several thoughts about this that may appear confusing.  Confusion is frequently the centrist's lot.

1.  The "every way but on paper" is a pretty sad statement coming from a lawyer.
The "rules" written down on paper is what the law is all about.  That goes back to the 12 tablets on which the law of early Rome was written on so that the people would know what the law was and would not be abused.
2.  It seems like a pretty cynical maneuver in search of votes.  (As someone said: search, release, vote.)


But, on the other hand, if you back up into Article II Section 2 you will also find that the president:
3.  "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States"


Now I don't know if that is dispositive in this case, but it sure seems like it is enough to say that Krauthammer ought to dial it back a notch or two.
.

Obama's speech 9-8-11

.

From President Obama's speech.

I'm all for doing what he proposed. But ...

Maybe I'm suffering from Obama fatigue or something, but I don't like these kinds of arguments.

A:
"Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire – if we refuse to act – middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We cannot let that happen. I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away."

I think that this says: pass this bill, it includes a taxcut. If you don't pass this bill, you will be raising taxes. This is so sad.

B:
"How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?"

consider: He seems to be saying you guys need to get rid of your principles they are just "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do"? I don't believe Bush 43 ever described the liberal opposition to the Patriot Act is such insulting terms.

C:
"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

He is quite right here. Lincoln dealt with an existential threat to the country and made many long term innovations in other areas at the same time. But you have to be careful when you drag up the biggies, because that also invites a comparison. I suppose it goes like this: In the middle of a recession caused by a very serious financial crisis Obama proposed a short term jobs program to ease the recession and ignored the long term money problem.

What the country needs is a grand compromise which calls for the necessary sacrifices.

What did Obama ask for?
.

Obama’s foreign policy

.
What I hoped would be characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy went something like this.
1. Be strong where US security is involved.
2. Be reluctant to interfere inside other countries even “for their benefit.” Use all other available means first.
3. If you must go in, then go in carefully and get a lot of other countries to go with you so that it is (and appears to be) a world action.
4. Lay the groundwork for reducing the military budget (I would hope to about 3 % of GDP) AND reducing the military mission by a concomitant amount.
and finally I hoped that he would:
5. Agree with Walter Lippman’s belief that: Foreign Policy is bringing into balance the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power, with a comfortable margin of power in reserve.
Consider that dictum in light of the fact that, in the last 60 years, our GDP has dropped from 50% to 25% of the world’s GDP. Then begin moving us away from the (unsustainable) KATN (kick ass and take names) U S foreign policy and toward the next proper (and sustainable) American role in the world: that of being first among equals.

So how is he doing after 31 months in office? Well, we have some examples. This is very preliminary and therefore subject to change – probably they will not go quite as well as I hope they will. So with that caveat

In the war in Afghanistan he upped the ante and increased American forces. How it will end is not clear. But he has showed himself willing to be quite aggressive in the war widely believed to be justified for American security. As aggressive as, say, Bush 41 was.

When the pirates had Capt. Richard Phillips as a hostage Obama directed the military to take them down directly and totally. They did it with coordinated gunfire that left 3 dead and one captured. I don’t think he checked with Congress about that and I’m glad he didn’t.

In Iran I suppose that he judged that our intervening would not increase the chances of a good outcome. Obama resisted the urge to get us involved in what could easily have become our third simultaneous war with Muslims. In Egypt there was a very strong institution, the Army, which had a positive attitude and appears to be able to handle that transition without any outside help. In both of these examples I think that what Obama understands (and some of his detractors do not) is that if we jump into these situations early in a big way we will cripple the revolutionaries because they will be labeled as U S stooges (= traitors).

In Libya where, again, we could not afford another war, somebody(?) got NATO (usually thought of as an extension of the US military) to undertake a very effective action in that country. That somebody got those folks in France, whom some ridicule as “cheese eating surrender monkeys”, to take a leading role in that action. His detractors call that achievement “leading from behind”. Finally in Syria, Obama waited long time before ordering US sanctions on Syria. Some people thought it was an outlandishly long time. However, the great majority of Syria’s oil is sold to Europe. Obama and Europe have been doing a dance the last few months while they took turns increasing the pressure in Syria. The real potential for pressure in this case lay with the Europeans. Perhaps he is, again, getting the world to take a larger role. It might be appropriate here to recall Harry Truman’s observation that, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

These things are consistent with moving the U S role in the world from KATN toward first among equals.

So I will give him at least a B.

PS Napoleon famously said, “If you set out to take Vienna, then take Vienna.”
Obama’s corollary is: “If you set out to get bin Laden, then get bin Laden.”
.

2012 Candidates - Sept - 2011

.
.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case.
Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30)[[ 9/1/11 9:30 PM CST. Sorry I let the date slip up on me and this was presented without last minute editing. I would just change it but there have been comments so I need to keep the old version which is struck out and new version is in italics.]] Seems more and more like a candidate. Would be a strong one. Is a strong candidate. But is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? If he enters,it will quickly become a two person race: Romney-Perry.
He may be a strong candidate. There is a chance he will implode. The main questions are: Does he pass the YAMSLT test? Is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? If he holds up it is a two person race: Romney-Perry.

Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT
Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-8)


Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01) As I know him more, I like him more. I would consider him. Seems like serious people take him seriously. I don't see how he wins the nomination though.
Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1) Has a long way to go to be a serious cand.
Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1) - I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1) - She is playjng games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1) - I would consider him. A serious person. Apparently did not pick up Daniels's support.
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

2012 Candidates - August - 2011

.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case.
Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06-22)Seems more and more like a candidate. Would be a strong one. But is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? If he enters, it will quickly become a two person race: Romney-Perry.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15) - I would consider him. A serious person. Apparently did not pick up Daniels's support.
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT

Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-04) As I know him more, I like him more. I would consider him. Seems like serious people take him seriously. I don't see how he wins the nomination though.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3) - She is playjng games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-03)

Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01) Has a long way to go to be a serious cand.
Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01) - I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

What President Obama Needs To Do About the Debt Crisis

Thanks to Yellow Armadillos for inviting me to blog here! I hope your readers will be interested in this:

Jackie Salit, President of independentvoting.org, appeared on Fox and Friends July 27, 2011, to give an independent perspective on the budget negotiations.  Salit says 'I'm a member of the Anti-Party, which is what about 40% of the country is today' -- most Americans don't like parties, partisanship, and Americans will come together around structural political reform. There is no middle ground, but there is a way to bring Americans together.  President Obama is trying to play to the center when there is no center. Obama needs to come out strongly in support of political reform and indies will support him.


Click for VIDEO

You can read more news by, for and about independent voters at The Hankster

2012 Candidates - July-2011

Sorry I let this get up here before I was able to update it.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.

Democratic
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

Republican
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare is. I think not and I now think he can make the case.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25) - I would consider him. A serious person. The most likely replacement for Daniels.
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT
Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06) As I know him more, I like him more. I would consider him. Seems like serious people take him seriously.
I don't see how he wins the nomination though.

Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06)Would be a serious candidate. But is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his Jobs record that good?
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-6) - She is playjng games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03) (sorry I forgot him before)
Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01) Has a long way to go to be a serious cand.

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01) - I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

2012 Candidates - June-2011

Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.

Democratic
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him (again).

Republican
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-28) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare is. I think not. But I don't know if he can make the case.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-25) - I would consider him. A serious person. The most likely replacement for Daniels.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19) - A lightweight. Fails the YAMSLT.

Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10) A lightweight. Fails the YAMSLT.
Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05) Still don't know him.
Seems like serious people take him seriously.
I don't see how he wins the nomination though.

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03) - I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02) (sorry I forgot him before)
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-1) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Bobby Jindal (1-1-1-1- 1-01)- Fails the YAMSLT.
Jim Demint (1-1-1-1- 1-01) - Too far right for me.
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

Mitch Daniels (15-15-16-16-16-2) - I would consider him.
A serious person. Sorry to see him go.
Mike Huckabee (25-20-21-18-18-2) - Fails the YAMSLT.
Delighted to see him go.
Chris Christie – Says he’s not running. I would have considered him.
Is he reconsidering since Mitch dropped out?
Donald Trump - (x-x-x-x-0-out )- Will not be a credible candidate.
Haley Barbour – (0-0-0-0-out (as predicted here in February))
John Thune -Says he’s not running.
Mike Pence – Says he’s not running.
.