Reed: Senate Integrity Demands Burris be Denied

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Our topic this week is, "Should the United States Senate seat Roland Burris?" Based on the flip of the coin, I will argue that Burris should be denied entry into this august law-making body.

It's important to note that, even as we argue the point, the wheels are turning and a decision may be finalized as the debate gets posted. This should not affect our arguments or your comments. In fact, any decision on Burris' fate may indeed make the debate more lively. Remember, too, that the ultimate decision could have affects reaching well outside the borders of Illinois.

It is important to begin by noting that, while some may question Burris' overall ability to be an effective voice for the people of Illinois in the U.S. Senate, no one has thus far questioned his moral character or intimated that he is privy to the scandal in Springfield. Burris, 71, was the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois and served as its comptroller in an admirable fashion. As Illinois' appointed Attorney General, he has avoided the odorous taint that often overwhelms high-ranking politicians in a state where a felony record is not required to hold high office, but often seems inevitable by the time the office holder leaves office and enters into custody.

The fact remains, however, that Burris has tried and failed on numerous occasions to earn the trust of Illinois voters in an attempt to gain higher political office. He was defeated in a run for the U.S. Senate in 1984. He failed in attempts to become Illinois' governor in 1994, 1998, and 2002. He was trounced by Richard Daley when he ran for Mayor of Chicago in 1995.

One must admit that Roland Burris is no quitter. His desire for high office, and some would say his incredible ego, has led him to make comments that have raised questions among Illinois voters as to his desirability. According to an article printed in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1993, Burris claimed that he was "not some fluke or perennial candidate." In 1998, the Tribune quoted Burris referring to his democratic primary opponents as "non-qualified white boys."

The fact that Burris would play "the race card" in a state where many African-Americans had already made great strides toward overcoming racism is telling, and a very good reason for the Senate leadership to deny Burris' entry. Illinois Congressman Danny Davis, Governor Rob Blagojevich's first choice for the seat, is also black. But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Davis refused the offer of the seat from the scandal-tainted Governor, saying, "It would be difficult for me to generate the trust level people would have to have in me" (see: www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1363433.)

Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, apparently views the issue as soley about race. According to the Sun-Times article mentioned above, Rush referred to the United States Senate as "the last bastion of plantation America." He told the Tribune that senate democrats would "have to come and ask for forgiveness" from black voters if they failed to seat Burris.

This style of politics has become, almost exclusively, the mantra of aging civil-rights-era veterans who, in large part, shunned the Obama candidacy in favor of Hillary Clintons's more traditional campaign rhetoric. But the change that President-elect Obama championed is based not on eliminating the pain of an "oppressed minority", but rather unifying Americans to face the challenges of new and uncharted territory, to the benefit of all. In spite of Rush's statement that the United States Senate "needs an African-American", what the people of Illinois, and indeed the entire nation, need is a Senator who can take his or her seat free of scandal and ready to meet the challenges and sieze the opportunities brought about by our recent history-making election.

My learned opponent will no doubt argue that Blagojevich, while under federal indictment for trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder, is still the Governor of Illinois, and as such has the authority to appoint the successor to Barack Obama until such time as the people of Illinois, or the courts, take away that privilege. Such is not likely to occur any time soon. But the Senate also has legal authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris. According to Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution, "Each House Shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." Section V goes on to say that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (see: http://www.usconstituion.net/).

Thus it appears that Burris, should he arrive at the doors of the Capitol with certified election papers bearing the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State and the official seal of the State of Illinois, then he will be the legally-appointed Senator from that state. And should two-thirds of the Senate refuse entry to Burris, for whatever reason, he will have no recourse on the federal level unless the Supreme Court intervenes, which is highly unlikely.

So this is not a legal argument. Rather, it is an argument based on somber judgement, common sense and an eye toward the greater good. As the Sun-Times said in a January 6 editorial, "If Burris is truly taking this job for the benefit of the people of Illinois, as he insists, he'll do the honorable thing - not take it. This is not about race, this is not about Burris. This is about standing up for fair play."

Fair play - not a common term used in political discourse over the last century, especially in Illinois. But in light of an historic election in the midst of uncertain and tenuous times, strong leadership and fair play may well be the only things that save our great nation. Illinois, and the United States Senate and the people it represents, deserve no less.

Dano: If it's Legal, Let Burris Sit in the U.S. Senate

Welcome back, folks. This week, Reed and I are revisiting political matters, mostly because there's a lot to discuss, but also because we sense our readers prefer political topics to non-political ones. Feel free to correct our assumption if it's wrong.

The coin flip has me arguing this week that the United States Senate should not block the seating of former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris, as Barack Obama's replacement. My arguing this position requires that indicted Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was within his legal rights to make this appointment (which I believe he was), and, further, that the Illinois Supreme Court will either force the reluctant Illinois Secretary of State to certify the appointment, or will determine that certification is not legally necessary (these issues are yet to be determined). As of Tuesday, January 6th, the U.S. Senate has refused to seat Burris on the sole basis that his paperwork is not certified by the Illinois Secretary of State. I will proceed as if these issues will be taken care of, such that the U.S. Senate will be saddled with this seating decision without regard to technical impediments.

A little housekeeping for anyone who may not know it: the United States Senate does not have to allow anyone to hold a Senate seat, even if they were legally and unquestionably elected by the people of their state. All it takes is a 2/3 majority vote for the Senate to deny someone a Senate seat, so the issue at stake here is more a moral or ethical one than a legal one.

Those who would suggest that the Senate should deny Burris the seat are, most often, relying on the notion that the appointment itself was inappropriate because Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been indicted for corruption -- specifically, for trying to "sell" Obama's vacated Senate seat for his own personal gain. Current Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, asked the Illinois Supreme Court to strip Blagojevich of his Gubernatorial duties (including the Senate appointment) pending the outcome of legal investigations. They denied her request. Every Democrat in the U.S. Senate asked Blagojevich not to make any appointments, as did the Illinois legislature and most other officials in that state. By and large, the Illinois electorate also appears to have been against the Governor's action. But the rub is that he hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing, yet. So, what's the deal?

Two Kinds of Justice

This topic is pretty easy for me, because, as a former paralegal and a current criminologist, I have studied law extensively. For those of you who very well understand U.S. jurisprudence, please forgive the "professorial tone" of the following paragraph; most people have not studied these issues, so a little background to support my point may be necessary.

There are, in the U.S., two distinct kinds of justice -- procedural justice (meaning that outcomes are just, based upon the use of proper legal procedures), and substantive justice (meaning outcomes are just, based upon the facts as determined by the finders of fact). Most of us believe, in our hearts, in the supremacy of substantive justice over procedural justice. Remember the national outcry when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? His acquittal was actually based upon the findings of fact made by the jury (sounds like substantive justice), but the jury's findings were greatly affected by law enforcement's procedural mistakes. In the United States, procedural mistakes, especially deliberate procedural wrongdoing, is thought to be as egregious as Simpson's alleged criminal acts. In fact, all appeals of criminal convictions must be based on procedural mistakes or wrongdoing, not upon the findings of fact. Note to law enforcement: DON'T EVER TRY TO FRAME A GUILTY PERSON. The upshot of this is that, no matter how we may disagree with the outcome, Simpson was appropriately acquitted of those murders from a procedural justice point of view. So, what does this have to do with Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris? Read on.

The Law is the Law

Blagojevich has not been tried on the charges for which he was indicted, no less convicted. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the standard upon which we base our legal procedures. There has not been even a single formal release of evidence against Blagojevich, because there has been no formal prosecution. Yeah...I believe, as many do, that he probably is guilty as charged -- the man is an unpleasant person who seems inclined to abuse power in the ways he has been accused of abusing it. But, again, this is not sufficient to call him a guilty man.

Blagojevich remains the duly elected Governor of Illinois, and the law says that, as such, he alone has the ability to appoint a replacement for Obama as U.S. Senator from Illinois. The law doesn't require that he do so, but he has the sole ability. Because the Illinois Supreme Court has elected not to act against him, the Illinois Legislature is the only remaining legal body with the ability to modify the Governor's procedural rights (presumably by impeaching and successfully prosecuting him for some crime or crimes). This has not occurred. Therefore, as distasteful as it seems, Governor Blagojevich was within his rights as Governor of Illinois to appoint Roland Burris to replace Obama.

The U.S. Senate "Calculus"

So the question for the U.S. Senate becomes an ethical one: Should we allow the man appointed by the tainted Illinois Governor to hold a Senate seat, or should we deny his entry and wait for the people of Illinois to replace Obama in a new election? It is clear that they are leaning toward denying Burris the seat, but this is a mistake.

The fact is that U.S. Senators are lawmakers. As such, they should be the standard-bearers of impeccable legal procedure. In this case, they should recognize that Burris's appointment was legal and procedurally allowable. More importantly, however, denying him the seat based upon "gut feelings" about Blagojevich's guilt, while within their rights, amounts to convicting Blagojevich in a kangaroo court. I, personally hold U.S. Senators to a higher standard than that. Because Blagojevich was not actually convicted of wrongdoing, there is simply no logical reason to suggest that Burris is not a valid appointee. Remember, Roland Burris has not been accused of wrongdoing, and was, in fact, the Attorney General in Illinois who ran unsuccessfully against Rod Blagojevich for Illinois Governor. While Burris has also previously run for the U.S. Senate and been denied by the voters, this appointment is legal. The Illinois voters will have their chance to correct any "mistake" they feel has been made in the next election cycle. Members of the U.S. Senate, I fear, are playing politics at the expense of procedural justice.

Really?

Should Roland Burris have accepted the nomination? There's another can of worms, but, in my humble opinion, it's irrational political suicide. Maybe being irrational and suicidal are reason enough for the Senate to deny him the seat.

Naw...

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.

Musings from the Co-Host

There's a lot going on in our busy, complicated world, so it's heartwarming that our offering has generated some interest and feedback. Thanks, on behalf of Dano and myself, for your comments, criticisms and suggestions. We do appreciate it.

Our goal was to create a format for intelligent conversation, and so far we've succeeded. So it's sad to consider that, while we here in this little corner conduct debate in a way that can only be described as honorable, there are people on the national and international scale whose only agenda is to denigrate and destroy, through whatever means possible, those who would seek to lead our nation.

Jerome Corsi, who started the "Swift Boat" movement in 2004 which doomed the candidacy of John Kerry, is at it again. His book, listed as a New York Times Bestseller (not hard, by the way - 10,000 copies will do it. Print a 90-page anything and publish it from your computer, have your mom buy 10,000 copies, and you're a best selling author) is called "Obama Nation". Put the words together and you get his drift. This book, of which I have read inserts, is a collection of rumor, exaggeration and bold-faced lies regarding the Illinois Senator who would be President. It incorporates the worst of the worst the media, the Internet and the radical right has to offer to demonstrate that Obama's success would be the downfall of America.

Two things make me really sad in regard to this publication. First, Corsi doesn't deny anything I just said. He really doesn't care that his book portrays Obama in a false light. He freely admits that the only reason he wrote it is to help assure that Obama is not elected. For that reason alone, I would implore you to simply ignore anything you hear about it, or fight to get the media and the Republicans to vocally and vociferously repudiate it. America should hear no more from this malcontent.

Secondly, Mary Matalin, a conservative voice that I once respected, has lent her name to this fallacious diatribe, thus costing her whatever credibility she once had. Her husband, liberal commentator and political advisor James Carville, must be grinning over his corn flakes at his wife's major screw up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at their house as the "I told you so's" are mingling with his signature chuckle.

My hope is that the media will treat Corsi in 2008 as they treated Ralph Nader in 2004 - a non-entity on the political scene not worthy of conversation. If that happens, perhaps we will see a return to civility and respect on the campaign trail. Does this suggest there won't be attack ads and personal digs against the opposition? I'm not that foolish.

But maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when we make our decisions based on how well our candidates articulate their positions on the issues that are really important. In other words, how well they do what we're trying to do right here. God, what a wonderful world it would be.

Obama: Advance Notice on VP Available

The Obama campaign is offering registered visitors the opportunity to get Obama's VP pick emailed and/or text-messaged to them in advance of their national press release or news conference. Of course, all the media will have signed up for this info as well. I doubt very much that there won't be a leak even before any of us gets the message. What do you think?

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.

Dano: The Case Against Obama

Hello all. The coin has been tossed for this week's topic: Obama as president? According to the flip, I advocate this week against Barack Obama.

In thinking about this assignment, I considered the tremendous volume of negative material, in the media and on the Internet, aimed at Barack Obama. And so, it would seem my task--highlighting the reasons he shouldn't occupy the oval office--is a relatively easy one. But first impressions are just that, and it is clear that much of the negative stuff on Obama is, unfortunately, based on misinformation, whether by mistake or deliberate propaganda. It would be inappropriate and unfair for me to rely on this rhetoric for my position (but who the heck would ever have thought they'd even be considering a presidential candidate often passionately described as an unpatriotic, elitist, radical, African-American Muslim, who, if elected, plans to "destroy America from the inside out?" Yeah...and he probably illegally tears those annoying tags off of mattresses and pillows, the fiend.). In fact, I thought I might have to first address and dispel many of the most egregious of these negative attacks in order to get at the real negatives, but then I thought, "maybe this is exactly what Reed is doing." I trust him to do a good job in this regard. My task is to tell you why Obama should not be president, and to offer support for my position.

So, then, Dano...why shouldn't he be president of the United States?

Let's take an objective look at Obama's experience. He has only been in the United States Senate since January, 2005 (37 months). He has no other Federal Government experience, though he served in the Illinois State Senate for the seven previous years. Obama has never been a mayor or a governor; he has no "chief executive" experience whatsoever. He has never served in the military, nor attended any military school. He has never been appointed to any ambassadorship, nor to any judgeship or Cabinet post. Some would argue that private-sector public service work represents qualifying experience, but I disagree. I consider it irrelevant (see discussion of previous presidents' qualifications, below).

For more information on his Government service, see http://www.barackobama.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama (neither of these sites are biased against Obama, so they are assumed to be reasonably trustworthy for biographical info).

This means we are left to determine how qualified and effective Obama can be as a Government leader based only upon his legislative record. In the case of his Illinois legislative experience, a brief review of his stated accomplishments reflects a great deal of legislation to his credit; with one issue as an exception (more on this below), I would be happy to concede that he did well enough in the Illinois legislature to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But does being qualified to be a U.S. senator also qualify one to be POTUS? Not quite. Every single president in the last 100 years (that's as far back as I care to consider) was one or more of the following (and most of them filled numerous of these positions) prior to ascending to the presidency:

1. a governor or lt. governor
2. a vice president
3. a high-ranking military commander
4. a Cabinet or department secretary
5. a U.S. congressman (for at least a full term, usually longer)

(see http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html).

Now back to the exception regarding his doing well in the Illinois legislature. Senator Obama frequently voted "present" on very important issues during his tenure in Springfield. We're not talking about minor issues, but really major ones, and ones that might even cost him votes by his party base. Below is a portion of an article written by Nathan Gonzales, the political editor for the Rothenberg Political Report:

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

(see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html)

What's the upshot of this? Sure, he got a few good things done. But when it matters where Democrats are concerned, he frequently chose not to vote, rather than to have his views known to the voters. This represents a record that can be cherry-picked for good sound bites, but that truly reflects a lack of spine on partisan issues about which he should be proud to show his record. In the end, if he can't even support his own party platform in a convincing way, he can't expect to get bipartisan support for contentious issues while president. Obama is not nearly as conscientious or experienced as other presidents have been. He simply isn't qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

There is one last thing that might deserve consideration. This country has roughly as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Then there are independents. It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a majority of the popular vote. Republicans know this. No matter whether Obama is qualified to be president, if he gets elected, can he gain the trust of congressional Republicans? Something more than a majority of voters might well support efforts to thwart his agenda. Without more experience in the U.S. Congress, does he have the length and strength of relationships to draw bipartisan congressional support for his agenda, despite pressure from unhappy Republican constituents to crush it? Potential post-election difficulties should not be included in the qualification calculus, but they are relevant to the ultimate question this week: Should Obama be president? Definitely not. To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Reed: Obama for President - YES

The coin has fallen, and I take the role of Obama advocate. It's not too difficult, either, because when one considers the foibles and fallacies of the previous eight years (can you say "I'm the decider"?), it's easy to assume that anyone who has said he/she won't follow current policy is the obvious choice.

Barack Obama's critics will first and foremost stress his inexperience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. John McCain lambasted Obama for offering his opinions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of the fact that "he's only been to Iraq once, and has never been to Afghanistan." Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! And what happened? I think McCain has learned the truth in the old adage, be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Obama went to Iraq and Afghanistan, talked to the troops and commanders, and conferred with leaders of those and other countries whose interests are affected. He then moved on to Europe, where he spoke to more than 200,000 people in Germany, many of whom were waving American flags as a tribute to one who they perceived to be a viable ally and leader.

Tell me please, when was the last time our allies in Europe felt compelled to wave our flag instead of burn it?

Be that as it may, the "inexperience" argument may fly with some, until we consider some history. Another politician from Illinois made it to the White House in 1861. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, Abraham Lincoln served eight years in the Illionois General Assembly and two years in the U.S. House of Representatives - a total of ten years in political office.
Compare that to Senator Obama - seven years in the Illinois Senate, three years in the U.S. Senate, ten years in political office. Whoa - coincidence? Experience is only as important as the skills and wisdom we gain from it. Many experienced politicians, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon among them, failed the nation and her citizens through poor leadership and unwise decisions in spite of years of experience.

Leaders are indeed born, and from his early years, Barack Obama has proven himself a leader. Coming from a modest background, he graduated from Columbia University and went on to Harvard Law School where, in 1990, he became the first African-American President of the prestigious Harvard Law Review (see http://www.notablebiographies.com). After graduation from Harvard he turned down high-paying jobs with Manhattan law firms to move to Chicago and focus on civil rights law.

This is the kind of decision-making skill that gets one's head carved into a granite monument on a mountainside - foregoing the pleasures that money and power can bring to work for the greater good. And it is decision-making skills, as opposed to experience, that make the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Perhaps the most compelling reason I have for believing that Senator Obama is indeed qualified to lead our nation rests in a story that began in October of 2002. Support was growing for the Bush Administration's push for military action in Iraq. No facts supported such a strategy, so the administration used lies, innuendo and faulty intelligence to prod Congress into approving a war resolution. Sixty-one percent of Democrats in the House and Senate approved the President's request for authorization of military force against Saddam's regime.

(For more information, see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution).

And it is interesting to note that many, including 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry and Obama's primary rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, both subsequently expressed regret for their support of the resolution. The 2006 Congressional elections were a clear sign that the American public was tired of a trumped-up war that Americans now felt should never have been waged.

But in a speech in Chicago on the eve of Congress' approval of the resolution, Obama, then a state Senator from Illinois, spoke passionately of the need to avoid the war in Iraq. In his speech he called on America to avoid what he referred to as "a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics" (see citation link, next paragraph). And while he agreed with President Bush that Saddam Hussein was a dictator whose removal would be applauded, he noted, correctly, as the facts have demonstrated, that Saddam's government and military were bankrupt and impotent and posed no grave danger to the world.

Senator Obama then spoke words which still ring with prescience. "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." (The text of the speech can be found at many sources, including http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343).

When a young, vibrant, passionate man stands and presents himself to the nation and the world in such a powerful and prophetic manner, the reasonable person can only listen, and observe, and agree - this man, Barack Obama, has the mind, the heart, and the soul of a leader. I say, let's let him lead. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

This week's topic: Obama as President?

Alright. This is going to be fascinating. This week's topic, "Obama as President?" is full of possibilities. Let's go over the ground rules.

Please understand the following:

The two of us have flipped a coin to decide who will go "pro" and who will go "con" on the weekly issue. Our posts do NOT reflect our personal politics, and those who know us personally are asked not to attack either of us for being "traitors" to a point of view (see SITE RULES in sidebar). The idea behind what we are doing is to teach everyone (and ourselves) how to better discuss and debate issues without resorting to diatribe, passion, emotion, or any other "less than rational" dialog. Any comment that includes vulgarity, name-calling, or any statements that are not supported by empirical data or honest emotion (without disrespect) will not be tolerated on this blog, and are not welcome here. If you feel strongly about an issue, feel free to say why, but please back your position up with a citation to the reference material from which you learned your point of view.

We intend to support our "pro and con" positions with neutral fact websites or other neutral resources such that every post we make is beyond reproach from a journalistic standpoint. In the case that we get information from a less than neutral website (and we will endeavor to figure this out in advance), we will indicate that in our posts. To the extent that we succeed at this, this site should flourish. We've called it an experiment; this is partly because we don't know if we can do it by the rules, but we will try. We ask only that commenters try as well. Please see the section on site rules in the sidebar. Note that it is our hope that all participants, including your hosts, but also school teachers and college professors will utilize this site to help people learn how argument and persuasion can and should be done. This means there is no room for vulgarity, name calling, or angry and unsupported rhetoric. If you don't follow comment rules, your comment will be removed. Young people may be reading here! Please act accordingly!

For posting rules, which reiterate these points and others, please see the sidebar entitled: Site Rules.

What will follow are individual postings by Dano and Reed on the topic for this week. Please feel free to comment on them, and expect us to comment on each others' posts as well. This is a learning process for us all.

One administrative note: we are attempting to have comments show up immediately under the relevant posts, but this has proven to be a glitch on our hosting site. If you want to see your comment, for now, you must click on the small "comments" link below the post. This will bring up a screen that shows all comments for each post, and you can bring up the original post there as well. We're trying to fix this problem.