Dano: Public Campaign Financing? It Doesn't Matter

(Note: Reed's post gives a succinct history of campaign finance in the U.S., so I'll not repeat it. I will also avoid repeating his citations for brevity, though I relied on some of them also.) 

Well, for a change, I got a coin-flip this week that threw me for a loop. I am supposed to argue that we should maintain the public campaign finance system for federal elections (and, perhaps, mandate its use). But, by golly, after my research, I decided that it doesn't make a lick of difference where the candidates get their "individual contributions." I guess that sounds confusing.

The term, "public financing," is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is that money provided by the government comes from individual taxpayers (private citizens) who decided to contribute $3.00 of their personal tax obligation to the campaign finance fund for presidential elections. Yes, this is a small amount from each donor, but it adds up (though, as of 2006, fewer than 10% of taxpayers contributed annually--more on this issue, later). Moreover, there is an element of private donations within the public finance system, because it only provides "matching funds" of up to $250 per private donation. "Private financing" simply means that individuals donate directly to candidates instead of doing so through their tax returns. The difference is that individuals can (and do) contribute considerably more, though also limited by law, through this direct-donation mechanism. Also by law, corporations are prohibited from donating directly to candidates under both systems.

Fundamentally, proponents of public campaign financing say that this system reduces the possibility of corruption (because the source of candidate funding is known in advance, and is above-board), and helps to minimize the relative advantage of having deeper coffers than other candidates, such that "buying an election" becomes less likely. Under this system, candidates are not permitted to use more than $50,000 of their own money for their campaigns (unlike the substantial personal financial input provided by previous candidates, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few). Of concern to candidates of parties other than Democratic or Republican, public financing is not available to them.

Those who support private campaign financing suggest that it, alone, protects the constitutional right of (unlimited) free speech, and that this system is regulated sufficiently to guard against corruption. The system is said to be superior because each donor has the right to direct their support to a specific candidate (where no such ability exists with public finance funds), further protecting the rights of donors to not support a candidate they don't like. Moreover, there are no limits on how much can be amassed in the aggregate, so if a candidate enjoys support from a much larger proportion of the public than his/her opponents, then his advantage in advertising funds is proportionate and fair. Finally, any party's candidates can get this form of funding -- not just Democrats and Republicans.

So, why doesn't it matter which system we use?

Of minor relevance, there are some equalizing factors between the two systems. First, the advantages of private financing are mitigated by available funds through public financing: 1) public financing subsidizes the nomination conventions of those candidates that accept it (not an insubstantial cost), and 2) public financing pays for the costs of attorneys and other administrative costs (also nothing to sneeze at). But that's not the main issue.

A less obvious issue is that, while we all know that public financing, at least in the 2008 campaign, garnered Senator McCain only about half the money that was collected by President-elect Obama, this is a consequence of both systems being utilized. Remember, above I noted that income tax contributions to public financing were made by fewer than 10% of taxpayers in recent years. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-17-preztax_N.htm?csp=34)

 If, however, candidates were required to use public financing (or, more accurately, prohibited from using private financing), the percentage of citizens choosing to donate with their tax returns would likely rise precipitously.  So, while the free choice to accept private financing exists along with the public financing system, a candidate can choose either method and take his chances, but private financing seems to hold the advantage so long as it remains available. This, by itself, is no reason to mandate one or the other.

The overarching reason the system chosen doesn't matter is that they each deal with "hard money" contributions only. Both systems allow expenditures of "soft money" contributions through the activities of political action committees (PACs), and by organizations known as "527s" and "501(c)s." Taken together, these organizations spend unlimited donation monies to support issues (directly), and candidates (indirectly ). The only "free speech" limitation on these groups is that they cannot suggest voting for or against a particular candidate. They can (and do), however, say things like, "candidate A is the only patriotic contender," and "candidate B is clearly unpatriotic." The power of these groups to affect elections was well illustrated by the soft-money-funded "swift boat" campaign against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race -- many believe this advertising strategy cost Kerry the election. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of these groups to advertise in this way, and no legislation short of a Constitutional amendment can change this fact (see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 [1976]). So, essentially, as long as PACs, 527s, and 501(c)s can operate with impunity, their impact on election outcomes is far more relevant than the direct ads by the candidates, regardless of the sources of their funding.

Some might argue that direct candidate ads have a great deal of impact on voters' choices. That may be true, but I submit that the number of ads, and the geographic spread of them, is not as important to campaigns as it once was because of the advent of 24 hour news networks that endlessly replay the campaign ads of the candidates during the entire course of the election cycle. Even though John McCain spent far less than Barack Obama, for instance, I saw every important political ad that McCain produced as many times as I saw Obama's ads (okay...maybe not quite as many times, but effectively so). The news pundits see these ads as free content, and this essentially gives every candidate free air time. Unfortunately, the news outlets also give free replay time to the ads from the PACs, 527s and 501(c)s. So, again, the power of soft money organizations remains superior. Until this changes (through FCC regulations on media or a Constitutional amendment limiting soft money free speech), there is simply no important difference between the public and private campaign finance systems.

Campaign finance is a very complicated issue, to be sure. But concerning ourselves with an either/or argument over public or private donations is, quite simply, a misdirected effort. Both systems are regulated to prevent corruption, with debatable success, perhaps. But campaign finance reform needs to concern itself primarily with soft money controls if we expect to level the playing field for all candidates and prevent corruption and influence peddling in presidential campaigns.

Reed: Presidential Candidates Don't Need Our Tax Money to Run a Campaign

Hello, folks, and welcome back to Butt and Rebutt. As you've noted, we have been somewhat out of the loop, but this week we're back with a vengeance, and our topic is, "Should public financing continue to be available to candidates for president?". Based on our coin toss, I will argue that public financing for national campaigns has outlived its usefulness if, indeed, it ever had any.

Our recent election brought this issue to the forefront in a surprising way. The Republican candidate, Senator McCain, opted to accept public funds, while the historically cash-strapped Democrats prodded Senator Obama to forego public funding. The Democratic strategy, fueled by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, proved to be an overwhelming obstacle to Sen. McCain's ability to compete for expensive media time, and many pundits are convinced that, once again, this election was won and lost on the ledgers, not at the ballot box.

Sen. McCain, however, had little choice but to opt for public money. He was, after all, the co-author of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) McCain-Feingold Act, more properly known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. President Bush signed the act into law on March 27, 2002, making it the first meaningful revision to laws pertaining to public financing of elections since the first such measures began being administered by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in 1976 (see www.fec.gov/pages/bcra).

It is important to note that 1976 was not the year that this issue came to the forefront. In 1966, Congress passed legislation that would have provided public money to Presidential candidates by funneling funds through the political parties. According to the FEC, the law was suspended a year later, for obvious reasons (www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund). In fact, not even in 1966 were Americans first prodded to look at such a system. Fifty-nine years earlier, according to the FEC, Theodore Roosevelt proposed that public financing of national elections was the only means through which a fair result could be obtained.

Roosevelt's argument in 1907 was the same as that which resonates today - money, and I mean big money, perverts the political realm and insures that only the wealthy and well-heeled can attain high office. To the founding fathers, service was expected and personal gain was set aside. But by Roosevelt's time, special interests had already begun to pervert the process and political chicanery had become commonplace. Thus the argument was, and remains today, that public financing is the only way to assist a candidate with modest means to aspire to greatness in the political arena.

I don't buy it, no pun intended. I agree, as I assume the vast majority of our readers and Americans in general do, that money has indeed become a corrupting influence in the political realm. And the fact that Barack Obama raised more than half a billion dollars to compete for a job that pays $400,000.00 a year raises the simple question, "Why?"Our system has been co-opted by special interests, to be sure, and the money is the driving force. But it's relevant to note that, according to the New York Times and Fox News (organizations that don't often find themselves in agreement, editorially speaking), the average donation to the Obama campaign was less than $90.00.

The most money raised in any political campaign in history, and the average donor gave ninety bucks. Do the math. It's clear that, in spite of our cynicism and anger over how lobbyists, corporations, unions and radicals on the right and left have dominated the money grubbing and media hype, the common man and woman still care enough to fork over a few bucks to support a cause.That's democracy in action, the little person stepping up to help the candidate who best represents his or her values, beliefs and interests on the national level. But that citizen, passionate for a candidate or a cause, has no control over how the federal government doles out his or her tax dollars to presidential aspirants. In other words, your taxes may be going into the campaign coffers of a candidate you find totally repugnant.

I know I don't like that. I assume you don't either. But I also don't like the system the way it is, or was, where money drives politicians to say anything it takes to get elected, to crawl in bed with whatever special interest has the most umph, and then to claim high moral standards as a reason to earn my vote. So the idea of using tax-payer dollars to fund campaigns was based on noble ideals. But as so often happens in the political realm, the best intentions often produce the worst results.

This is a complicated issue on several fronts. Dating back to the 1970's, challenges to restrictions on fund raising and expenditures in political campaigns have hinged on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Buckley v. Valeo which upheld the notion of restrictions on certain campaign fund raising as "primary weapons against the reality or appearance stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." However, in the very same ruling, the court recognized the validity of free-speech arguments, stating, "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Restrictions on this form of free speech, the court said, could only be justified in the case of an overriding governmental interest (see http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley.html.)

In this seemingly contradictory ruling, the court did not spell out what constitutes "overriding governmental interest," but the concern was balancing a group or individual's right to participate in the electoral process with the need to prevent graft and corruption within that process. I submit that this balance, and indeed all the concerns expressed in Buckley and cases brought subsequent to this ruling, can be addressed by common sense regulation of private sector contributions to candidates and parties.

I would accomplish this by instituting two major reforms to the current system which I believe would render public financing unnecessary. First, Congress should enact legislation that prevents a candidate for federal office from soliciting or accepting contributions for his or her campaign for a period of time equal to half the term of the office sought. In other words, a candidate for the office of president, which carries a four-year term, could not officially form a campaign committee or raise and spend outside contributions until two years prior to the general election. This is important because, while we prepare to inaugurate the man we elected this month to serve for the next four years, National Public Radio has reported that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in Iowa, planning his strategy for a 2012 run for the presidency (All Things Considered, November 22.)

Nothing in the legislation would impede a potential future candidate such as Governor Huckabee from traveling around making speeches. It would, however, prevent political parties, corporations or wealthy individuals from contributing to a campaign fund in the candidate's name.

The second and equally important aspect of this reform would identify, once and for all, who may or may not contribute to national candidates and how much that candidate can lawfully raise. An individual's campaign would be allowed to raise no more than ten times the amount of the salary paid by the office aspired to during the course of one term. In other words, a candidate aspiring to attain the presidency, and its $400,000.00 annual salary, could raise and spend no more than $16 million. That money could be raised through donations from individuals not to exceed $2000.00, or corporations, unions, or parties not to exceed $50,000.00.

While these sums may seem paltry compared to the massive amounts of money currently spent on national campaigns, a shortened political season would mean less money would be necessary. Such a system as proposed would also serve to level the playing field for third-party candidates, or those with less name recognition.

There is one argument that public-finance proponents offer that would not be addressed under a system such as I propose. That is the notion that unheralded candidates with modest financial means and no name recognition could not compete. I would submit this argument is flawed for two reasons. One, it is false on its face. Raise your hand if you had ever heard of Ron Paul before the Republican debates first aired. Very few hands in the air. But the Texas Congressman set a single day financing record, raking in more that a million dollars over the Internet after his first debate performance.

Secondly, a young state senator from Illinois, from a very modest background and without a war chest, went from virtual unknown to President-elect in four years due to nothing more than his eloquence and perseverance. Proof positive that gifts of style and substance can overcome, at least in the short term, a lack of money or power.

In closing, I believe we can all agree that our political system, with its reliance on massive amounts of money and influence, is broken. The answer lies not in turning the system over to the government, or by completely deregulating the system. As is often the case when things are complicated beyond the capability of most citizens to understand, we should strive to simplify this system while relying on citizen participation, not taxpayer funding, to select our leaders.

Reed: Electoral College has Outlived its Usefulness

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Let me begin by asking you to please spread the word that Butt and ReButt is back, and we want to be a strong force for reasonable, intelligent discussion and debate. So if your friends are not reasonable and intelligent, well......

At any rate, our topic this week regards the Electoral College. I won't do a John McCain here and say, "I bet you've never heard of that" because I know you have. And Dano has given us a very good primer on the history of the college, so I will argue, based on our coin toss, why the Electoral College is not only no longer necessary, but actually detrimental to our democratic process, and should be replaced by a national popular vote.

My grandmother, God rest her soul, loved Richard Nixon because she believed he had "an honest face." I'm confident not many who remember that heavy brow and five-o'clock shadow would agree. But beauty, talent and ability are indeed in the eyes of the beholder - in the case of presidential candidates, the voter. But voters in America, since Article II, Section One of the Constitution was adopted, have been casting their ballots not for president, but for electors.

That system was developed based on a variety of problems faced by the Founding Fathers (note: there were no founding mothers.) According to William Kimberling, a Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration, the founders were dealing with a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small states jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government,
  


• contained only 4 million people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable),
  


• believed, based on the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  


• felt that "gentlemen" should not campaign for public office (The saying was, "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.") (Please note the web site of Federal Election Commission).
  

In the late 18th century, these might have been valid arguments for creating such a system as the Electoral College. But those arguments carry no validity today and for that reason, the system as it stands should be abolished.

This is not to say that individual states no longer jealously guard their rights. Citizens of each state own the right to elect their local and state leaders, and choose who they send to represent them on the national level in Congress. But, were it not applicable prior to 1865, certainly the outcome of the Civil War demonstrated that the union of the American states, and the federal government elected to represent that union, was and is the engine that drives our standing in a world that grows smaller every day.

We are now connected, by transportation and communication, not only between village and city, but state to state and nation to nation. Our population is no longer waiting in anticipation for the elite, more educated leaders of the community to report back from the halls of government as to what is best for our nation. Citizens, on an individual basis, are now expected to not only know what is happening within those halls, but to control them through the exercise of selecting our representatives in all branches of government.

Not only that, but federal law now trumps state law in almost every conceivable situation in which the two might clash. Therefore, each American deserves an equal say in who represents him or her on a national level. And the design of the Electoral College prevents this equality.

Consider the following: Activists and campaign volunteers, both Republican and Democrat, have stressed to potential voters that, no matter what your status in life, your vote counts just as much as that of anyone else. Were it only true. But based on the 2000 Census, and the Electoral College's allocation based on population, an individual voter in Wyoming carries approximately four times as much weight as a voter in California. This makes one wonder what is really the value in the concept of "one person, one vote."

The answer is, where presidential elections are concerned, the concept is false. Our current election race offers a prime example. Michigan, considered a "swing state" due to its high population, has been "written off" by the McCain campaign because, based on the opinion of McCain's handlers and the media pundits, Michigan is "unwinnable." So Senator McCain has pulled all of his campaign staff from Michigan to concentrate on other "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In other words, the voters of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will decide the presidential election for the entire country, and the voters of Michigan have now been informed that, for all intents and purposes, their votes don't matter and they can stay home. More importantly, the pundits will be calling the election before the polls even close in our nation's most populous state, thus rendering California's citizens' votes meaningless, since the Republicans will have conceded that state based on its electors' Democratic tendencies.

There have been many anomalies in Presidential elections throughout our history, most of which would have been avoided through a true popular vote. In 1836, one party, the Whigs, ran three different candidates in three separate sections of the country. The purpose was to ensure a Whig majority in the Electoral College by appealing to the particular desires of each demographic. The plan was foiled when the electors chose Democratic-Republican candidate Martin Van Buren by absolute majority - but the electors themselves found Van Buren's Vice-Presidential candidate so objectionable that they failed to vote for him. Thus it was left to the Senate to make the determination, and it chose Richard Johnson, the running mate, as Vice President.

The means through which our electors vote today do not necessarily preclude such a bizarre scenario from reoccurring. It is possible that an Electoral College could select Barack Obama, but refuse to recognize Joe Biden, thus turning the election of a Vice-President to the Senate. Such a scenario would certainly render the President impotent, because in our party system (which the founders were trying to avoid), the candidate's first and most telling decision is that of a running mate.

There are a number of reasons to believe that this system should be scrapped, but the most important is its inability to accurately reflect the will of the American people. This argument was made by Republicans in 1992 when the party noted that Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, but was a clear winner in the Electoral College. And it is true he did not win the majority of votes - but he won more popular votes than either George H.W. Bush or Ross Perot, thus claiming a clear victory under the most "democratic" of principles.

The 2000 election also produced a winner who did not garnish the majority of the popular vote. The contrast, and the most telling reason why the current system should be abolished, is that the declared winner, George W. Bush, did not even win the most votes. Democrat Al Gore, according to the FEC, won over 500,000 more popular votes than did our current President (see FEC/GOV/2000). It will be left for history to decide how this travesty has affected our nation and our world.

In conclusion, I would submit that, in spite of our Constitution's creation of a republican form of government, an amendment allowing a democratically-elected President is now imperative. The President of the United States is, at least for now, the most powerful person on earth. If we desire to maintain our status as a leader in world that has evolved in startling fashion since our founding, we must allow our peoples' voice to be heard over that of outdated, unworkable tradition. One voice must carry the same weight as any other, and one vote must count as much in Kentucky as it does in Florida. Our people must elect our President.

Reed: We Cannot Afford to Wait for Russia to Leave Georgia

The coin has been tossed - but more importantly, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and America must respond.

Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically-elected leader of Russia in its long and storied history, had a close relationship with President Bill Clinton, and the two leaders worked together to strengthen ties and overcome the mistrust and fear that resulted from the Cold War. Unfortunately, for Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the free world, Yeltsin handpicked Vladimir Putin as his successor.

Putin, a high-ranking KGB officer under Soviet Premiers Andropov and Gorbachev, served as director of the Russian Federal Security Service. It has been suggested, both in Russia and the West, that Yeltsin chose Putin to follow him as President simply because his support, among the people of Russia and within his own Cabinet, had totally disintegrated, and Putin remained loyal.

Alas, it has become apparent that Putin's loyalty was self-serving. In spite of President Bush's assertion that he "was able to get a glimpse of (Putin's) soul", he obviously was unable to foresee that Putin's motives were to reestablish Russia's dominance of the Balkans, Caucuses and the rest of eastern Europe in Soviet fashion.

The invasion of the Republic of Georgia is the latest example of Putin's expansionist policies, even though he is no longer the president of Russia. His successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a front man, and the world knows that, in his new role as Prime Minister, Putin calls the shots. And while many might argue that oil is the overriding factor in Russia's decision to invade, and the most important "talking point" among nations such as France, who would seek to mediate the dispute, it is clear to me that Russia's motives are much more sinister and have to be addressed forcefully, and now.

Senator John McCain, Republican presidential nominee and staunch ally of the Georgian people, is not now, due to political expediency, calling for an American military response. But in 2005, McCain, responding to Russia's stated desire to enter Georgia to "protect" loyalists in the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said,"Sooner or later [Putin] has got to realize that the the path he is on will eventually bring down his government."

McCain, in an interview with CNN's Jill Dougherty, pointed out a variety of issues that indicated Putin's lack of desire to work with western allies (see: www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/24/summit.russia.dougherty). These included arresting the head of Russia's only privately-held oil company and nationalizing the oil fields, and controlling the mass media in Soviet fashion.

Politics notwithstanding, our national interest and our loyalty to democratic allies demands that we step up forcefully and, if need be, militarily. Diplomacy, conducted by French President Sarkozy, has obviously failed, since the "cease-fire" agreement Russia signed on August 12 was followed by Russian tanks entering the Georgian city of Gori early on August 13. And even while foreign correspondents reported conversations with Russian soldiers in the convoy (Associated Press - see: Christopher Torchia and Misha Dzindzhikhashvili), Russia denied its troops were even in the area.

This is not a call for ground troops, nor is it a task the U.S. should take on unilaterally. Indeed, based on NATO's previous acceptance of Georgia as an ally, and Georgia's desire to join the treaty organization, NATO should be the force that presents itself as a deterrent to further Russian expansionist policies. NATO's own website refers to Georgia's strong cooperation in maintaining Euro-Atlantic security (see: nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html), and Georgia ranks behind only the United States and Great Britain in the number of ground troops sent to fight the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Yes, NATO should take the lead, but the U.S. military is a vital part of the NATO alliance, and just as President Clinton utilized the airspace above Iraq to protect the Kurds in the southern part of that nation, so can President Bush protect our democratic allies in Georgia. Russian tanks are no match for American air power, and just as Russia has demonstrated her ability to dominate a weaker Georgia, an ally of America and western Europe, so must NATO and America demonstrate their ability to respond to aggression from what is now a weaker Russia.

If we wait, Russia will continue to consolidate her military might to Cold War levels, and our ability to protect our allies and, indeed, ourselves, will be greatly compromised.

Reed: America Can't Afford Four More Years

Welcome back to the blog, folks. As a follow up to last week's topic, "Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?", it was only logical to present his opponent in the same format. And the coin toss dictates that I will argue that Senator John McCain is not the most qualified candidate for the presidency.

Let me begin by saying that I honor, as do the vast majority of Americans, Sen. McCain's military service and agree that he is a bona fide hero. And his service to America through his many years in the Senate is commendable. But experience in and of itself is not a qualification. America needs someone, now more than ever, who can inspire us to achieve positive results. John McCain has not demonstrated, in this campaign, that he has that capability.

McCain has spent the majority of the last few months not touting his own record, but ridiculing his opponent. In spite of a pledge to conduct a positive, issue-oriented campaign, his statements have been pointedly critical of Sen. Obama while not explaining why he is the more credible choice.

A prime example is the recent flap over Obama's suggestion that Americans should check their tire pressure to insure they are getting the maximum fuel economy in their automobiles. The McCain campaign handed out tire pressure gauges engraved with the message, "Obama Energy Plan." McCain said in a speech that Obama "doesn't want to drill, he doesn't want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires."

Apparently, and to his credit, Sen. McCain has since done a little research, and has learned that indeed, even the American Automobile Association advocates making sure tires are properly inflated for maximum fuel economy. During an appearance in Ohio on August 5, McCain pointed out Triple A's corroboration of Sen. Obama's suggestion and said, "I don't disagree with that."

Oh, Lord - another "flip-flop".

That phrase, "flip-flop", is getting very old. I admire anyone who, after reasonably discussing an issue and being willing to learn, can say, "maybe I was wrong." Many in Congress have done so when it comes to their votes supporting the war in Iraq. But Sen. McCain, while criticizing how the war was conducted, has stubbornly resisted admitting that the decision to go to war was a mistake, in spite of the fact that, in a recent AP-Ipsos poll, 56 percent of Americans said that invading Iraq was a mistake, 62 percent disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war, and 66 percent oppose the war in general. (see www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). So, Americans' stated desires notwithstanding, Sen. McCain is willing to stand with President Bush and support this unpopular war, with no timetable for withdrawal, thus continuing the policies of the current administration.

And here is my greatest fear, and the most compelling reason that I believe Sen. McCain should be denied the White House. Eight years of failed policies, both foreign and domestic, can not and should not be continued. And in spite of his disputes with the administration, the "maverick" John McCain has voted with Bush far more than he has voted against him. In fact, Sen. Obama recently pointed out that McCain "decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time." And, according to the Congressional Quarterly, his statement is accurate (see www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html).

America simply cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies. There is too much at stake, for our economy, our environment, our security and our future. We must chart a new course, and we need new leadership in order to be successful. John McCain is not the man to lead America now. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

Dano: The Case for McCain

After the flip this week, I advocate for John McCain as president.

Let's face it, folks. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain has a very long history of public service. He is a bona fide war hero (okay...those of you that claim he was a traitor---prove it). You don't spend five plus years as a tortured prisoner of war during Viet Nam, and even turn down an offer of release because fellow U.S. POWs were not also offered release, unless you are a true patriot (McCain was offfered the release after his father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Viet Nam theater--this was a propaganda move by the Viet Namese authorities, and McCain refused his release). While in the Navy, he even served as commander of a Naval air squadron of 1,000 men following his time in Viet Nam. McCain has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty-two years, and served two terms in the House of Representatives prior to that. He is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and serves on the Readiness, Personnel, and Seapower Subcommittees. He has been a vocal opponent of pork barrel spending and of filibustering on judicial nominations. For more on his Congressional history, see http://mccain.senate.gov/public/. For his military service history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain. He clearly has tremendous experience to bring to the presidency.

The only argument of any weight against McCain, as near as I can tell, is that he represents "more of the same" conservative, pro-war, Bush-type governing. But that's not altogether fair. He believed the Administration's reports about what the issues were in Iraq--didn't we all at first? Afterwards, while John McCain supported the troop surge of 2007, he would not have had to do so if the war had been run properly. He said from the beginning that he thought the war would be won quickly, and it really was. I don't believe he ever said that we would know how to keep the peace quickly, or that we would come home shortly after a military victory (if anyone has evidence of the contrary, please feel free to correct me on this). He expected more of the Bush Administration than he (or any of us) got. Put simply, you can win a military victory against what is essentially a third-world power quite easily, but if you don't have the proper exit strategy, you get bogged down in a never-ending defensive battle against all those who seek anarchy and disruption in your nation-building efforts. Bush never properly developed a strategy for helping the Iraq Government take over their own security, or for keeping whatever peace he thought our involvement might have afforded.

McCain has certainly agreed with President Bush on most issues, and his record reflects this. However, he has been less than complimentary on Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. It is his very lengthy and honorable military experience, and, thus, his views on how the war should be conducted, that makes him look different from Bush. And nobody can argue that we need a different strategy than that of the great "decider." John McCain is uniquely qualified to bring about the strategic changes necessary to finally and honestly exclaim mission accomplished! To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Timeline for Troop Withdrawal is Negotiated

Wow. The AP writes today that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government are in negotiations to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by October 2010. Interesting reversal of position, if true. Certainly, now that McCain and Obama have both suggested that 16 months was a "reasonable time frame" subject to conditions on the ground, the Bush Administration might just be getting the message that the American people want us out as soon as possible. The AP article can be seen here.