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.

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.

Dano: Keep the Electoral College System...It's What the Founders Wanted

Okay, folks. Following a lengthy time during which I didn't feel I could do justice to the debates because of my head injuries, I'm getting back into it. While things are still difficult, I think I can function well enough, now, to give this a shot.

This week, the coin-flip says I argue for maintaining the Electoral College system for presidential and vice-presidential elections.


The "Problem" with the Electoral College

So, what is the big stink? Why are we asking this week's question?

While Reed will likely bring up other issues, the most prevalent complaint is simple. Under the Electoral College system, it is entirely possible for the majority of voters to vote for one party's candidates, and the other party's candidates to win the election. How? Easy.

Let's say that the eleven states with the highest number of electoral votes all vote for the Democratic candidates. These states and their numbers of electoral votes are: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Their combined electoral votes equal 271, a sufficient number to win the presidency/vice presidency. But, remember, even in these states, the votes might have been very close; each state may have chosen the winners based upon a bare majority of the popular vote. If every other state in the country, either by a simple majority or an overwhelming majority, voted for the Republican ticket, the total collective nationwide popular vote would be overwhelmingly for the Republican ticket, but the electoral votes of the largest eleven states would have put the Democrats into office. We recently had a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and thus, a controversial outcome. This was only the third time in our country's history that such a mismatch occurred, but it was so distressing to a great many voters that it may have been the most important wonky election result ever.

Many will recall the 2000 election, wherein George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, but Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 543,000 votes nationwide. Bush did not win via an electoral majority based upon the aforementioned largest eleven states, but won via a simple majority of the electoral vote from all states. The noted official count of the popular votes is independent of the Florida recount question (where many believe that Gore won more of the Florida vote than was actually counted). In other words, even after the official recounts were completed, Gore still had the advantage in popular votes. Many Americans who believe that the popular vote should have mattered in the election outcome have since been vocal opponents of the Electoral College system, whether they opposed it before the election or not. The crux of the issue for these folks, I believe, is the relative importance of the will of the people in choosing our highest elected officials. To be fair, neither candidate in 2000 won a majority of the popular vote (Gore, 48.38%, Bush, 47.87%), but Gore did have more of the popular vote. How could it be okay for more voters to select one party's ticket, and the electoral system to select the other? While I appreciate fairness as much as the next voter, my answer may anger some readers.

The Electoral College is The Best Solution

My primary argument in favor of the Electoral College centers around two things: 1) my own belief that average people don't necessarily make good voters, and 2) the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, and they were really, really smart people.

My own beliefs, first. I don't know exactly how or when I developed my views on this issue, but I feel them pretty strongly. I have long been annoyed by campaigns to "get out the vote" because my sense is that people who are politically engaged - those who care about things political - are already registered voters. For instance, if you care enough about what happens in the halls of Congress to exercise your singular voting power to affect legislation, would you not already be an active voter? To be sure, everyone's concerns about political things are proportionate to the amount of political activity that affects their interests. If you are an investor in the stock market, you are more likely to be concerned about legislative actions that affect the value of your investments on Wall Street than would be a non-investor. If you are a property owner, you are more likely to vote on a local referendum on property taxes than would be a renter. From this standpoint, many non-registered citizens are either not aware of the impacts of lawmakers or leaders on their lives, or there are insufficient concerns for them to get involved and to actually vote.

In all candor, I don't care nearly as much about local elections as I do national ones. But I did when I owned a business, here. At that point, I had concerns relative to the health and welfare of my retail store, my employees' job stability, my own administrative load, and my financial exposure due to business costs, taxes, and other such things. When there would arise a local concern about sales tax increases, it mattered to me. When the local city and county governments talked about consolidation that would affect police services, fire services, EMT services, costs of licensure, tax rates, and other issues, it mattered to me. But I no longer own a business, and I don't currently pay property taxes. In short, there are not a lot of local issues that directly affect me greatly, though I try to stay apprised of those issues that might. Nonetheless, because of my lack of vested interests in local issues, I tend not to vote in local elections as consistently as I do national ones.

The same things can be said about some citizens who do not register to vote, and/or don't ever participate in national elections. Perhaps they are unconcerned about whether there is welfare reform, or whether we allow illegal migrant workers to become citizens in some way, or whether taxes for people above the poverty line go up or down. Maybe some of them get lots of help from the government, with community health clinics and with unemployment benefits for six months whenever they might need them. Maybe they even rationalize that, regardless of their concerns, their one little solitary vote won't count in the scheme of things. In each of these cases, there is a lack of sufficient concern about their ability to have an important impact on political happenings to make them educate themselves about candidates or issues. This lack of education, and the associated lack of concern, is (I believe) at the root of voter apathy in this country. But is it really smart, or even okay, for such uninvolved and uneducated people to register and subsequently vote for a candidate based solely upon some unimportant characteristics of the individual candidate, or upon the quasi-authority they personally assign to a preferred commentator or their chosen TV news channel? Voting without a thorough understanding of at least some of the relevant issues, and at least a cursory understanding of the political platform of the candidates, is neither okay nor desirable. Voting for Barack Obama because he's the first viable African American candidate, or for John McCain because he was a POW and he chose a really cute running mate that winks at you through your TV screen is not okay. Voting for the Democratic ticket because Keith Olbermann doesn't like Rush Limbaugh, or for the Republicans because you thought Bill Clinton was an adulterous scoundrel is not okay. Put simply, don't vote if you don't care or if you don't understand the substantive differences between the candidates and/or the issues.

Why be concerned about how many people vote? Primarily, candidates feel that the more people of their party they register to vote, the greater their total number of collective votes will be. Assuming there is no "close call" in a given state, having the majority of votes will gain you the electoral votes you want. Moreover, regardless of winning via electoral majority, if candidates get more than 50% of the popular vote, they feel they have a public "mandate" to push forward their platform promises. So, the way things are, popular vote numbers still matter under the Electoral College system. For pragmatic reasons if not others, politicians don't seem to care about whether their voters are well-involved political students. Nonetheless, this concern about voters being thoughtful and well-informed, if not having a vested interest in political outcomes, is not just unique to me. In fact, it was at the very heart of the development of the Electoral College system. Read on.

The Founding Fathers' Intentions


Whenever a question comes up about the meaning of a loosely constructed or vague Constitutional provision, legal and political scholars often seek the guidance of other historical documents to decipher the intent of our Founding Fathers. What were they thinking? Why did they write it this particular way? One of the most instructive sources of their intent is the body of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written by many of the most preeminent statesmen of the day prior to our Independence. Many would suggest that the Federalist Papers were, in fact, sort of a first draft of the U.S. Constitution. The unique characteristic of these essays is that they are more like a thought diary, or the closest thing we have to a transcript of their debates on important issues that would later become Constitutional provisions.

The genesis of the Electoral College system, and, more specifically, the Founders' intentions with regard to the system of voting for our highest Federal leaders, is clearly illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist No. 68, authored largely by Alexander Hamilton, explains why the Founders wanted a group of electors to vote on behalf of the population, rather than counting on the citizens through a tally of their personal votes. Within their language, I find an uncanny similarity to my own personal belief about voters needing to be educated and involved before voting. The following language is from Federalist No. 68, although I have added the italics to sections that are particularly salient:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so an important trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

See http://federalistpapers.com/federalist68.html for more details.

Clearly, the Founders were concerned that only qualified people actually vote for our highest leaders. Suggesting that a "small number" of people, "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations," clearly reflects their desire that actual voters for president and vice president be uniquely qualified to make these important decisions - the clear implication being that average citizens (the "general mass") were not. While the "general mass" of today is a whole lot better educated generally than were the masses in our Founders' day, the apathetic voter of today is just as dangerous as the unqualified voters were then.

The Founders reckoned that the best way to insure that the actual votes being cast were done by thoughtful and qualified persons was to form what would later be known as the Electoral College, the body of proxies that would vote on behalf of the less-than-qualified average citizens. Nonetheless, they regarded the popular vote as important enough to be taken into account by the electors. And changes to the Constitution as well as state election laws have made the system, while not perfect, more fair today than ever before. It is simply a rarity, as in the 2000 election, that the popular vote majority does not end up choosing the winning presidential ticket.

Other Benefits of the Electoral College

Philosophical considerations aside, there are other important advantages inherent in the Electoral College system. I'll list a couple below, but there are many more. See http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php for more information.

One additional and important benefit is that the Electoral College eliminates the detrimental effects of disparities between voter turnout in various states. For instance, if November 4th finds the bulk of the country enjoying fair weather, but the New England states buried in eight feet of snow (which therefore prevents large numbers of Northern voters from getting to the polls), the states adversely affected still have their appointed numbers of electoral votes. In other words, even in a case where only 15% of voters can vote, so long as the proportional differences between the numbers of Democratic votes and Republican votes remains relatively constant within, say, Connecticut, that state will still have it's full number of allotted electoral votes. Imagine the detrimental affect, however, if we used a popular vote total, instead. Suddenly, the bad weather in traditionally Democratic Connecticut might unfairly compromise the Democrats nationally, because the solidly Republican central plains states see high voter turnout because their weather is pleasant. Under the Electoral College system, Connecticut still gets their seven electoral votes - even with only 15% voter turnout. Iowa, which may have had 60% voter turnout under good weather conditions, also only gets its seven allotted electoral votes. So the Electoral College manages to even out voter turnout differences while maintaining dependence on the popular vote within each state.

Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it isolates each state from all the others, and, therefore, isolates election problems as well. In other words, because the current system means that every state chooses its own rules and methods for generating the final state electoral tally, it is far easier to identify irregularities in voting infrastructure (think "hanging chad" from election 2000). Recounts necessitated by voting anomalies within a single state are more efficient than a nationwide recount in such a circumstance.

So, in the final analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Electoral College system. Except in the rarest of cases, the power of individual votes still determines how the citizens of each state collectively vote for president and vice president. The advantages of the system are several-fold, but the fact that the College satisfies the Founding Fathers' desire that voters be educated, discerning, and interested persons is of the highest importance.

Reed: Drilling to Economic Salvation? It Just Won't Work.

Imagine this scenario if you can. It's a Friday afternoon in Tallahassee, and six hundred miles away a town is bracing for a dangerous hurricane. You've decided to take off work early because, after all, it's Friday, and there's a football game tomorrow. You need to get home and get ready for the big weekend, but first you have to stop for gas. You reach one station, and the line at the pumps is reaching back into the road. You ease by that one, only to be greeted by a repeat of the same at the next station. Two miles up the road, a clerk is changing the price on the sign from $3.79 to $5.49 per gallon. The last station between work and home has strung yellow police tape around its pumps - no gas.

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. It's exactly what happened Friday, September 12, 2008. And it is a telling reminder that, in spite of what self-serving politicians and oil company executives may be preaching, America cannot drill her way to energy independence.

Hurricane Ike was a telling reminder that Tallahassee, and indeed our entire nation, is, as President Bush said in his 2006 State of the Union message, "addicted to oil." The President went on to say that the addiction could only be broken by pledging to invest in alternative fuel sources and reducing oil imports by 70% by the year 2025.

President Bush was right then. He is wrong today when he suggests, as does Senator John McCain and other politicos on both sides of the aisle, that we must boost production through more drilling for oil at home.

According to Randy Bly, spokesperson for AAA Auto Club South, Tallahassee could see gas prices at $6.00 a gallon and spotty availability later this month, if Ike-related damage to refineries in Houston were severe. "We're in for a bumpy ride, quite frankly, over the next couple of weeks," Bly told Nic Corbett of the Tallahassee Democrat (Sunday, September 14.)

And that, my friends, is the number one issue. Let's for a moment ignore the environmental impact that offshore drilling, and drilling in sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, might produce. Let's set aside the notion that our "addiction to oil" is fueling a climate crisis of unimaginable consequences. Let's even skip over the recent revelation that employees of the agency in charge of collecting the money for the oil leases owned by the United States government were engaged in a "sex, drugs and light sweet crude" debauchery with representatives of the very industry they are supposed to be regulating.

Let's instead concentrate on the means through which we turn the oil we purchase on the world market into the gasoline we so desperately demand - refining. According to news reports, one Houston refinery that shut down in anticipation of Ike refines almost one in every four gallons of gasoline sold in the United States. Think about it - in less than a week, our ability to produce gasoline was reduced by almost 25%.

Why? Because we are refining all the oil we can possibly refine right now. Currently America has 151 operating oil refineries, at least twenty-five in Texas alone, and each one has been operating at peak or near-peak capacity. Regardless of the fact that it would take many years to produce a single additional barrel of oil if restrictions on drilling were lifted today, increasing our domestic output simply means we would be sitting on that surplus oil for months - because we don't have the ability to refine it. Thus, gas prices, the raison d'etre for the "drill here, drill now, pay less" crowd, cannot and will not be affected by increasing crude supplies from domestic sources.

And the refining capability of our nation is not likely to change, in the short or long-term. An issue of "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connection", an industry publication, said in July of 2001 that the U.S. "appears to have built its last refinery" (volume 6, issue #13, July 17 2001). The article noted that no new refinery had been constructed in the U.S. since the mid-seventies, and "petroleum industry experts say anyone would be crazy to launch such an effort." Several reasons were given for this outlook:

• Refineries are not particularly profitable.
• Environmentalists fight the process from beginning to end.
• Government red tape makes the process all but impossible.

Let's just skip over the last two and concentrate on reason number one - "not particularly profitable." We must remember that all the oil produced today in the United States doesn't just appear in American refineries and wind up in American's tanks. Because the oil is "owned" by the oil companies, it goes on the world market and is snapped up by the highest bidder. Our refineries are not profitable because they are simply seen as a "cost of doing business" by the oil companies. This will not change until and unless America nationalizes its oil reserves.

And this will not happen. Capitalism, or consumerism as we practice in America, relies not on nations but on markets. And today's market does not reflect a short supply of available crude oil. OPEC's recent decision to reduce output by over 500,000 barrels a day (see www.sltrib.com/business) to maintain the price of oil at or above $100.00 per barrel indicates that countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia can easily dictate the price of oil regardless of supply surpluses or deficits.

If America were to allow more lands such as ANWR to be open to more drilling, best case scenarios say we could be pumping oil in five to ten years, according to the Spero Forum, a pro-drilling publication (http://www.speroforum.com/). OPEC at that point would merely reduce output further, thus continuing to control prices in spite of our efforts to control supply.

So it is clear - America cannot drill her way to energy independence, because America is but one of many players on the world market. China and India will be a much larger force as their demand grows. So, as President Bush said, we must defeat our "addiction to oil" by increasing our use of biofuels, harnessing solar and wind power to heat and cool our homes and light our streets, and allow American ingenuity to trump the power of the oil companies and their political cronies to control our destiny. This will take dedication, perseverance, money and hard work. But I believe we are up to the challenge.

We must be. The future of our nation and, indeed, our planet, demands no less.

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.

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.

Dano: No Military Involvement in Georgia-Russia Conflict

After the coin flip, I argue this week against U.S. military involvement in the Georgia-Russia clashes.

President Bush and other world leaders have demanded that Russia cease military operations within the sovereign borders of Georgia, which declared its independence from the Soviet bloc in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia is now a democratic state, and is a strong U.S. ally. Despite strong condemnations by the Bush Administration, the presidential candidates, European nations, and others, however, the U.S. cannot and should not consider direct military assistance to Georgia. The reasons are many.

First, from a strictly "moral high-ground" point of view, the fact is that Georgian President Saakashvili sparked the conflict himself by initiating attacks in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. The Georgian Government has long tried to bring South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia, back into Georgia, while the Russians have been seeking to annex South Ossetia and to support the independence of Abkhazia. Toward these goals, Russia has maintained a military presence in South Ossetia, and has granted its citizens Russian passports. Most analysts agree that Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia was ill-advised (see http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Georgia had nowhere near the odds of victory that David had against Goliath. Moreover, Georgia did not consult with its allies in advance of the incursion, nor did it seek backing from other countries to supplement its military effectiveness. It would not have garnered such support in any case. Despite this, President Bush stopped short of scolding Saakashvili. Bush also declined to defend the Georgian action, choosing instead to condemn Russia's response as "disproportionate." The president's characterization of the response as disproportionate tacitly implies that some more limited Russian military response would have been appropriate. At the risk of making us sound arrogant (and hypocritical), status as a U.S. ally carries with it a responsibility to conduct internal and external affairs in such a way as to garner our approval. Put quite simply, "We've got your back, but only if you're right." The hypocrisy here, obviously, is that we've dug our moral high-ground down to a nearly bottomless crevasse with our actions in Iraq (invading and occupying a sovereign nation under false pretenses); torture of war prisoners and terror suspects in violation of the Geneva Convention and our own laws; brazen political corruption; and even the Administration's deliberate constrictions on Constitutional freedoms for our own citizens. But two wrongs don't make a right, so the adage, "do as I say, and not as I do," seems particularly apropos.


Second, engaging Russia with force is a no-win prospect--not just for the U.S., but for the European Union as well. Russia supplies much of Europe with oil and other resources. For instance, Germany gets 42% of its natural gas from Russia (see , http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Any military action against the superpower would most assuredly be met with very damaging economic sanctions against our allies, and, by extension if not directly, against us. You think energy prices are high, now? Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in NOT poking the bear.


Finally, the U.S. simply doesn't have the military assets to engage Russia, or any other superpower. According to the Department of Defense, out of just over a million active duty military personnel, only about 122,000 are not currently deployed--either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at other posts from which we cannot afford to redeploy them (e.g., Germany, Korea, Bosnia, and NATO attachments). For more on this, see http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html. Moreover, out of the 122,000, only 36,000 are ground forces (the other 86,000 are Naval personnel). Even if we had all our military might available, we would be fighting against the second most powerful military on Earth, and, arguably, a formidable foe whose technology and training are not far behind our own. In a ground war, Russia has nearly twice as many armored vehicles, and almost six times as much artillery assets as the U.S. (see http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp). Obviously, with all assets free, we could not manage a unilateral military engagement, so these numbers do not represent the balance--inclusive of allied coalition support--of military power that would be in theater if we got involved. But we and our allies would very likely suffer catastrophic losses, even in a conventional war with Russia. We cannot afford to put more of our soldiers' lives on the line for this cause.


Diplomatic measures are required in this conflict. Between the U.S. and European nations, much can be done to pressure Russia into scaling back their military operations. Russia has been seeking admission to the World Trade Organization, and is a sitting member of the G8, an informal group of leaders from eight of the world's most powerful industrialized nations that meets annually to discuss issues of global import. Russia's actions are violations of international law, and Russia risks expulsion from the G8 and exclusion from WTO membership if it does not ratchet down it's operations. This is where the power of the U.S. and our allies rests.

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?

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.

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.

About Our Weekly Topics...

In answer to some questions we have received: No...this is not a politics only blog. Any socially relevant subject is fodder for our debates. Please feel free to suggest a topic. Keep in mind, though, if either of us doesn't know a darned thing about the subject, in ain't gonna make it into the random-subjects hat.

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.