Just so you know, I am not at all happy with the straw man campaign that’s being run by the opposition party. Yeah, its fun to think of George W. Bush as a straw man and its always fun to knock a straw man down but its still just a straw man and not the actual candidate that has enough issues on his own that a straw man shouldn’t be required.

But here’s the problem, if you personally attack Sen. McCain you have no place to say he’s the one slinging the mud. No one is going to mind you slinging a little mud on a lame duck president whose approval rating is in the gutter.

I’d love to find a righteous man that I could support but he isn’t out there this year.

In eight days we elect the next president of the United States. I haven’t said much about this because I’m less than enthused about my choices. There is really no one running, not even in the various third parties, that I feel I can support. For the first time in ages I’m truly undecided…. or at least I was.

I’ve made my choice but even now it wouldn’t take much to sway it in the next eight days. Basically I’ve been torn between wanting to keep congress and the administration out of the control of one party and voting for someone who once said that they would prefer a clean government to freedom of speech. There’s more than that one comment that has me upset with him but I think that most succinctly explains where I’m coming from.

As of now my plan is to be the last person voting in my precinct in eight days. I’m going to take as long as I possibly can to completely commit.

I’m really interested to see where this goes.  Marine Sgt. Rick Sanchez is a career soldier who received an expensive gift has been relieved of duty and is under an investigation that could lead to a court martial. A Marine Corps spokesperson has stated that, “as of now it doesn’t look like he’s done anything illegal but we are still investigating.” So I have to wonder is this really a story?

Last week we learned that a fine, upstanding and moral Republican Congressman was actually an immoral, hypocritical creep. Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had been sending naughty e-mails and lurid IMs to former congressional pages. Foley resigned from Congress, declared himself an alcoholic and immediately checked himself into rehab.

It annoys me that this happened for a couple of reasons. First, I’m troubled that we put creeps like this in office. At least Foley is now gone and out of the picture but what type of environment has Congress become that something like this could occur in the first place… and this isn’t the first time. Secondly this has taken the national debate away from immigration, tax reform and foreign policy and replaced it with something that you would expect to only see in some prime-time SOAP opera. This partisan circus is just not good for the country.

Now, up until today I was hoping this would just go away. As badly as Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) may have handled this problem I didn’t see a need for more than just an investigation. Yeah, he’s been a do-nothing Speaker but I didn’t see this being enough for him to step down. Like I said, though, up until today.

What has changed today is Speaker Hastert’s own words:

Hastert asserted that any Republicans urging his ouster are playing into the hands of Democrats and blamed his problems on the media and Democratic operatives, even suggesting former President Clinton might somehow be involved.

“All I know is what I hear and what I see,” he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the ethics meeting. “I saw Bill Clinton’s adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along, If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then.”

This man is not a leader. That has been apparent from almost the begining. However, the above quote shows him to be, not only ineffective, but a man out of touch with reality. Dennis, it’s time to go.

Immigration protests are beginning to get so numerous that some of the activist are beginning to wonder if they might not be causing more resentment to their cause than support. I think that is a valid concern. While continued bombardment with civil rights protests in the 50s and 60s led to an acute awareness of the fact that seggregation is absolutely wrong I don’t see the immigration issue having the same moral anchor. Regardless of what the activist may want you to believe this is an issue of border control and only the most adamant libertarian would argue for no controls on our borders.

Immigration is essential to the continued economic strength of the US but the immigration has to be legal. One of the problems I’m seeing is that we just make it more difficult to get into this country as a resident alien than it needs to be. Even with the millions of illegal aliens in our country our unemployment rate is still at around 5% which by most is considered full employment so why do we restrict work permits in our country the way we do?

If left up to me I would do completely away with any limit in the numbers that are allowed work visas. The only real requirement I would have for obtaining a work visa for immigrants would be that they would need a sponsor, be free of communicable disease and have not be tied to any known subversive groups. The sponsor could be either an individual or a US based business and would be required to pledge to provide food and housing support as needed for the immigrant.

There is also a bueacratic barrier to obtaining a work visa that needs to be streamlined. There is no reason that it should take over a week for a work visa application to be processed and either approved or denied. Taking longer is preposterous and places undue burden on people.

As far as amnisty for illegals currently in this country and working they need to go home and enter the country properly. They already have contacts in this country that can serve as their sponsor allowing them to stay here without going through the proper channels just isn’t right to the people who are trying to do things legally. It’s also shows a lack of respect for our own laws by just ignoring laws that have been broken. I would also make entering the country illegally cause for denying future applications for a work visa. If you come to our country and return before being caught here illegally you would still be eligible for receiving a work visa but getting caught would put you on an undesirable list.

If given my way I would simplify immigration as I have stated above and then after six months of the new immigration laws being in effect I would start mass deportation of those people found to be in this country illegally. This would give those in the country illegally time to arrange for sponsorship, return to their country and apply for a work visa with certainty they could return to this country after doing things right.

Seeing as how Bill Clinton and G.H.W. Bush are getting along so well I wonder if there is any chance we could see Bill Clinton nominated to the Supreme Court by G.W. Bush.

No?

Okay, I really didn’t think so, either.

I was hoping that we could go one more year but with Justice O’Conner announcing her retirement there will be a fight this year over the next Supreme Court appointment. The court and this country will be at a loss with her retirement. Whoever is appointed will determine the way of the court for the foreseeable future. A handy reference for understanding what is at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court appointment is The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. People, keep an eye on this. Your future freedoms count on it.

It looks like Atlanta is going out to find itself and spend $15 million in the process of doing so. Atlanta is a very diverse town so it’s not going to be easy to find a way to succinctly convey that diversity in a single brand and I’m not sure that it’s as necessary of a thing to do as the story would lead us to believe.

Oh well, it’s only money.

The Senate has been in an uproar this past week over rule changes that could take away the Democrats ability to block federal court judgeship appointments. Some Republicans want to reduce the number of votes required for cloture from 60 to 51 making it possible for them to break the filibusters the Democrats are threatening to prevent some federal court nominations from being confirmed.

Last week I listened to two different radio talk shows on my ride home from work, Sean Hannity and Randi Rhoades. I would switch back and forth between them because I can’t take too much of either for the entire ride home. Of course Sean Hannity was incensed that the Democrats would hold up the confirmation vote of any of the Administrations appointees and Randi Rhoades was incensed that the Republicans would consider doing away with the long standing tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate. Neither of them much cared for what the Constitution has to say about the matter or what the people of this country might really need out of all of this.

Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follow:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

There is nothing in the Constitution about how the Senate can be run, it just says that each House may determine its own rules. The filibuster isn’t something that was mandated by the Constitution, it was made up by the Senators and ratified as a rule of their proceedings. Well, actually the filibuster was never actually approved as a rule, it stems from the tradition of unlimited debate. The House began with the same acceptance of unlimited debate as the Senate but after the house grew past a certain size unlimited debate was unreasonable.

I think debate on legislation is a great thing. I also think that Senators should continue to debate legislative actions for as long as they feel necessary. I don’t think reading “pot likker” recipes into the Senate record is debate of legislation. Senator Huey Long did that back in the thirties. He was one of the all time champion filibusterers.

Originally there was no way to stop debate and call for a vote but then in 1917 the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote — a tactic known as “cloture.”^* Then in 1975 the senate reduced the votes needed for cloture from a two-thirds majority to a three-fifths majority. If the Senate drops the number of votes needed for cloture down to a simple majority there goes the tradition of unlimited debate. This is not healthy for our country. As it is now at least the minority is heard, but with a simple majority required for cloture legislation will be run though the house like it’s on an assembly line. No time for debate, just pass the bill and let’s get on to the next.

Of couse that’s just what Sean Hannity wants, a rubber stamp for the administration. You’d be hearing a different tune if it was a Democrat in the White House with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate.

Now just because I’m against altering Rule 22 does not mean that I’m a fan of the filibuster. Debate is one thing, talking on and on about nothing as an attempt to disrupt proceedings is another thing altogether. That’s where the term came from. I’m not sure how the rules should be constructed but the Senate does need some way to stop fellow Senators from talking on and on about nothing.

That’s why I can’t stand hearing Randi Rhoads try to suggest that her motivation for opposing attempts to change Rule 22 is because of her desire to see unlimited debate continue in the Senate. She wants to see the Adminstrations judicial appointees blocked.

If music radio wasn’t so repetitive, NPR wasn’t in the middle of a fund raiser and I cared anything about sports talk I would have a more pleasant ride home of the evenings. Maybe it’s time I looked into satelite radio.

I love it when people run the numbers for me. Josh Norton over at strip mining for whimsy did his own analysis of the Forida vote and has come to the conclusion that there was no voter fraud. I just wish he had published the spreadsheet he used to come to that conclusion.

Oh, and just so you know, Josh was a fierce supporter of John Kerry, or at least a fierce detractor of George W. Bush.

I’ve heard so many different people giving analysis on why the Democrats lost in the election. It seems they are all missing the obvious. They picked the wrong man to be their candidate. Kerry has not a drop of charisma and never gave a strong reason to vote for him other than he wasn’t George W. Bush.

They also used a strategy that cost Bob Dole the election in ‘96. Like the Republicans in ‘96 they depended on people voting against the incumbant more so than people voting for the challenger. That won’t ever work. People want a reason to vote for someone and the Republicans gave them one while the Democrats kept trying to give reasons to not return Bush to the White House.

I hope the Democrats get a clue from this and put someone up against the Republicans who is electable in 2008.

It appears that I could have been wrong yesterday. Regardless of the electoral college count Bush’s lead with the popular vote reported this morning is standing at 3.5 million Bush has garnered more public support than Kerry.

I’m going to be stuck inside a customer’s site all day. I’ll be interested in what the news says when I return this evening.

Here I sit in ATL once again awaiting a flight out to Austin, Texas. I got in line at 6:15 this morning to vote. The polls opened at 7:00 and I was out by 7:39. In that hour and twenty-four minutes my mind changed again on my vote. A couple of weeks back I said I was going to vote for Bush because I was so aghast that the Kerry/Edwards campaign would resort to pulling Mary Cheney’s sexuality into the campaign.

I’m still horrified that the man who will probably be running the country for the next four years would stoop to that level in his campaign but my decision to vote for Bush was made in haste. I still couldn’t vote for Kerry. I voted for Badnarik. During my time standing in line I overheard someone talking about wasted votes and it reminded me about how I feel about that stupid, stupid concept.

You see, I look at it this way, I’m either going to vote for a winner or a loser. If I’m voting my conscious, as I should be, the winning and losing won’t come into play in my decison of who to vote for. I’m going to vote for who I want to put in office. If it comes down to no one running that I want to put in office then I have to make my decision based on ideology alone. I will not vote against anyone.

No vote is wasted except for the vote you place against someone. It’s a neat marketing ploy that people use to elect otherwise unelectable politicians to pull the “wasted vote” argument. You build a team and pit one team against the other team, if they can persuade you that you are against the other team then they can use the polls to rationalize your need to vote for their politician because their politician is “electable” while yours isn’t. Voting for your politician instead of theirs just throws away your vote and is like voting for the “other team”.

I tend to believe that voting for anyone other than my own politician is throwing my vote away because it ensures that my politician will not stand a chance. I want my politician to at least have a chance whether or not I’m a winner or a loser. At least I’ll be true to myself.

—————

I’ve still about thirty minutes before my flight starts boarding so I thought I’d throw in a little more.

I’m almost certain that John Kerry will be our next president. I’m not too happy about this but I wouldn’t be too happy about another four years of George W. Bush so I guess it doesn’t matter. This nation will survive regardless.

For my Republican friends who are thinking that a Kerry presidency will mean the end of the free world I’m going to tell you to relax. The tax-cuts that you are enjoying are not automatically at risk. The president can only introduce legislation, sign it once it’s passed or veto it. Doing away with the Bush tax-cuts will require congress’ approval. You will still control both the House and the Senate.

For my Kerry supporting friends don’t think that there is going to be any major change in foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. There will be some changes but they will be insignificant for the most part and won’t mean a thing in your or my day to day living. If there is to be a draft is is even more likely to take place with a Democrat in the White House than with a Republican.

Whoever is in the White House we will still be subject to removing our shoes in airports, random searches of our luggage, the FBI checking out our reading list at the library and inadequate intelligence telling us what is going on in the minds of the third world. Our economy will either grow fast or it will grow slow but it will still grow because people will make that happen, not the government.

When you get right down to it, it isn’t that big a deal.

I have been working long hours out of town for the past two weeks and it looks like I’ll be doing the same for the next two weeks. I have managed to watch portions of all the debates and I think Bush did better on his delivery in his second and third debate with Kerry. Nothing new was said about their plans to change my mind on voting for Badnarik but one element did come into play that has changed my mind.

The Kerry campaign bringing up Mary Cheney was a desperate move and one I’m very uncomfortable with. The look VP Cheney gave Sen. Edwards as he was thanking him for “his kind words” told me then that it wasn’t thanks, but a punch in the nose that he wanted to give him. One time like that, though, you let it pass and give the person the benefit of the doubt. The second time, though, when Sen. Kerry brought up the fact that Mary Cheney is gay, that’s a deliberate act.

I think what pushed me over, though, was when Elizabeth Edwards made her remark about the Cheney’s being ashamed of their daughter. That was too much. If Mary Cheney wants to talk about being a Lesbian then that’s her business but we don’t need a man who will bring up other people’s sexual orientation for political gain as President of theis country.

Because of the fact that I believe that President Bush is less than fully competent to be the leader of the free world I wanted to try to give John Kerry every benefit of the doubt but so far everything he has said leads me to believe that he would be even less competent in the Job than George Bush. I have no confidence that he can deliver on any of the promises that he’s made just by the way he has presented them.

My biggest problem with Bush isn’t his taking us to war with Iraq, I think that was needed, nor is it his lack of competence in nation building, I believe that one strategic mistake made after the fall of Baghdad put us where we are there now. My biggest problem was the way many of our civil liberties were trampled on shortly after the terrorist attck on 9-11. The Supreme Court seems to be reeling the administration in on that item so I have to consider what John Kerry would do to my civil liberties. I think, regardless of his rhetoric he wouldn’t change much.

If this was a contest between the lesser or the greater of two evils I would have no problem choosing the lesser of the two evils. Until now I considered them equal evils. Now, Sen. Kerry’s decision to bring Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation into the campaign he has just slid over to the greater of two evils side. Because of that Badnarik no longer has my vote. I like the ideals of the Libertarian Party but it seems like they draw more than their share of crackpots.

I will vote for George W. Bush in November. Kerry, you did this to yourself.

I managed to stay awake through 30 minutes of the debate last night. I thought Kerry was well prepared and eloquent in his speaking. I thought Bush was on the defensive and stammering too much. In delivery I’ll give the debate to Kerry. However, I heard nothing last night that made me want to jump on either man’s bandwagon. My vote is still with Michael Badnarik and I’m not even riding his bandwagon.