Do you vote?

I live in New York state.  Here we are allowed to vote in school elections.  The only districts exempt from these laws are those known as The Big 5 - those districts in the five largest cities in the state.  I believe the Big 5 still vote for board of education members but not on budget.  These elections are for members of the board of education in the school district one lives in and a yes or no vote on the school budget.  The state regulates these elections heavily and all of them are held on the third Tuesday of May.

Last night, I spent about 20 minutes on the phone with the local newspaper’s education reporter.  The topic of discussion was voting in school elections.  In a year when elections are all the buzz, there is anticipation that turnout in these elections will increase.  Generally speaking, in the school district I live in, the election turnout does not even equal the total number of students enrolled in the school.  This number is not near the total number of eligible voters.  I believe, in my district, the average turnout is about 1,500 and the total number of eligible voters is 15,000.  This is well below the turnout for municipal, state or federal elections.

The lack of turnout may be a good thing.  The beginning of May brought about a budget hearing for my district.  Someone spends a lot of time putting together information to present to the public regarding the budget that is about to be voted on later in the month.  The state requires that each district hold a hearing.  At this particular hearing, in attendance were four school district employees - all administrative or district office employees, two Board of Education members - including one who is running for re-election and approximately six people.  Questions were asked but not many.

My point is that we have very few elections where our vote is a true impact.  Please educate yourself and get out on May 20th and vote!!

The “Race” Card is Played

Of course, there are those out there who will say I have no right to talk about race.  I grew up in a town that had two black families and they weren’t looked on as black.  I am white, Anglo-Saxon.  But, now that the card has been played in the presidential campaigns, I am going to talk about it in the context of Barack Obama’s speech yesterday.

In case you missed the speech, you can find it YouTube or on his web site.  I strongly suggest you watch it, not read it. 

The words were wonderful.  My problem comes with the presentation.  Unlike all of his signature speeches given to date on the campaign trail, this was not given in a huge arena with screaming throngs of fans.  It was given in a large, sit-down setting.  Obama was not standing in the round, but on stage behind a podium.  He was not flanked by high-profile supporters, but by US flags.

The setting was presidential but the words were not.  Yes, those who currently supported Obama thought the words were wonderful.  Those of us a bit more skeptical didn’t.  I saw a man that did not seem at ease with what he was saying.  Unlike his normal speeches, he seemed hesitant and utilized teleprompters.  I am not saying that using teleprompters is a weakness.  I am saying it is not “Obama”-like.  

The speech did not whip the listener into a frenzy like his normal speeches do.  Why not?  Why is it that, when talking about something that goes to the core of who the candidate is, the candidate seems stiff and uptight in delivery?

I don’t look at Barack Obama as the “black” candidate.  I look at him as a candidate.  There is something in this particular delivery of this particular speech that causes me, as a skeptical voter, to give pause and think again about whether this man is really presidential material.    

MSNBC-Cleveland State Univ. Democratic Debate

First, I was annoyed that the debate was set to start at 9 pm.  I had not slept well the night before and was really hoping to be asleep by 10 pm.  That in mind, I got all set to watch the 20th debate on the democratic side of the presidential nomination process.

I had about a quarter of a bag of jelly beans, a fresh bottle of water and my trusty notebook and red pen so I situated myself in front of the television set after making sure that I was recording One Tree Hill.

The debate starts and my lights start to flicker.  I decide that, even though the 17 year old is still on the phone with his girlfriend, I will get up quickly and turn off the computer and any extra lights that are still on.  I make it to the living room - my home is not all that big - and the flicker is enough that the computer shuts itself down.  Now, I am concerned so I boot it back up and then shut it down normally.  The lights continue to flicker.

I settle back in to watch and Clinton is in the middle of some statement - I am not sure if it is an opening or in answer to a question from Brian Williams - regarding health care and the mailers that went out from the Obama campaign.

My 13 year old comes in.  He swears that the transformer diagonally across the corner from the house sparked badly.  We still have power.  He goes back to bed.  Clinton continues about health care and slamming home the differences between her and Obama.  In comes the 13 year old again.  There are all kinds of flashing lights outside the house.  I get up, missing more of the debate, and find he is right.  I cannot tell what has happened but it does look like everyone has power.  It looks like there are police and emergency vehicles.  Cars coming down the hill we live at the bottom of are not allowed to turn right.  The road going left is rather ugly looking.

I head back to the debate.  I did watch all of it but was not impressed.  I started taking notes but gave up after the last commercial break.  It did nothing to impress me and I was not thrilled with it, though I do believe that MSNBC asked harder questions and kept control better than either of the most recent CNN debates.

CNN-Univision Texas Democratic Debate - Part 2

I know I said I would finish my thoughts on Thursday night’s debate yesterday but, as usual, life gets in the way.

Another big topic, but not one with any surprises in it, was immigration.  Clinton strongly reiterated that there needs to be a pathway to to legalization for those in our country illegally.  She also said that more compassion needed to be used when raiding business locations as we are not a country that just throws people out leaving children to come home and find Mom and/or Dad sent away to another country.  She would work on legislation for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship, within the first 100 days in office.

Obama basically reiterated the same point of view.  He added that the country as a whole needs to tone down the rhetoric on this topic.  We need stronger border security and need to fix the legal immigration system so people are not waiting too long to get into our country and they do not attempt to enter illegally.

On the topic of a border fence, something both voted for in 2006, both say they believe this physical border needs to be revisited.  Clinton called the Bush plan counterproductive as it splits land, including the University of Texas in Brownsville.  She believes that the federal government needs to listen to those who live along the border.  Some of the border can be protected through more technology and more personnel instead of a physical barrier.

Obama agreed that local communities needed to be consulted about a physical border fence.  The Bush administration has not been good at listening.  There needs to be a process to deal with this problem that is well publicized and done in conjunction with comprehensive reform.  He also took this time to insert that he feels those who are here illegally, but were brought into the country as young children when they had no real say in the matter, need to be eligible for aid for higher education. 

Both were then asked, in light of the increasing number of Hispanics living in the United States, what the downside is to becoming a bilingual nation.  Clinton responded that it is important to be bilingual but that English should be the common, unifying language of our country.  English is an important part of the American experience.

Obama says that everyone needs to learn English as it is what binds us together as a country.  He took this opportunity to point out that we need to get rid of No Child Left Behind and its focus on standardized tests so as to help support the education of those who are native English speakers.

Both were asked to comment on truthfulness and giving others credit for quotes.  Neither admitted to doing anything wrong and both took this opportunity to hit on their basics from stump speeches.  Clinton discussed the talk versus action theme and that actions speak louder than words.  Obama took the opportunity to discuss inspiring  the people to get involved in their government - a topic similar to required volunteerism which is not something I think will fly in the US.  He discussed a $4000 credit towards higher education in exchange for nationnal service but I am not sure the US has the money for this or the capacity to track and administer it.

When questioned about their non-support of the surge in Iraq which seems, by all accounts to be working, both tried to take the limelight away from the military success and put it on the lack of success in the Iraqi government stepping up to the plate.

We have all seen, unless we live under rocks, the ending of the debate so I will not go into it again.

CNN/Univision Texas Democratic Debate

Yes, it seems like all I do these days is watch debates.  I got tired of them about August but am back with my pen and notebook taking notes.  And, yes, my sons look at me like I am nuts as I head to a television that won’t disturb them with a mug of hot tea or coffee, the notebook and pen.

Being a sports fan, I wondered at the opening statements.  Obama won “the toss” and elected to open second.  Was that a strategic move?  Did he have some clue who Clinton was going to mention in her opening?  It seems as if he did as he had a quote from Barbara Jordan to use in his opening after she was mentioned by Clinton.  That really points to his skills as an orator but does nothing to impress me on his skills as a leader.

Clinton opened with accomplishments and mention of important female Texans - Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards.  She talked of living in Texas 35 years ago.  She talked of her health care accomplishments (children’s health insurance plan) and her health care wants (no discrimination against the sick).  She closed her opening with a line I paraphrase as she has a “lifetime of experience and proven results” to bring to the White House.

Obama opened with the conditions in the country.  We are at war.  Our economy is in shambles.  He told, without the names that John Edwards would have used, stories of individuals that the things wrong in our country are hurting.  He again pointed out that the war should never have been authorized and never should have been waged.  He closed with the thought that Washington is not lacking good ideas but is the place they go to die.  He, then, quoted or paraphrased Barbara Jordan in that he wants to help make “America as good as its promise.”

I seriously think the most substantive, new information came when Jorge Ramos of Univision started the debate with a question on Cuba.  He wanted to know, as I am sure a lot of Cuban-Americans do, if, as president, the candidate would meet with Raul Castro or whomever the new Cuban leader would be to “get a measure of the man.” 

Clinton’s answer seemed the most direct and honest in my mind.  She stated clearly that she would need to see signs of change - the release of political prisoners, opening of the economy, lessening of oppression of the press and the Cuban people.  She would be open to diplomatic discussions once she saw these changes in Cuba.  She would need evidence of the changes and, she pointed out clearly, that diplomatic discussions would not involve the president at first.

Obama, I felt, hedged a bit on his answer.  He immediately said he, as president, would personally meet with the new Cuban leader.  He did say that this change in leadership is the starting point of liberty for the Cuban people and should be something the US encourages.  Then, he said his meeting would be without preconditions but would be with preparations such as the new Cuban leader’s stance on human rights and on a more open press.  These preparations will take time.  To me, this is symantics.  Preparations, preconditions.  The only real difference in this portion of the Cuba discussion is who would meet with the Cuban leader - diplomats or the president.

Obama was questioned by Campbell Brown, the CNN moderator, as to why the change in his opinion as he said in 2003 that he would normalize relations with Cuba.  Obama reiterated that the loosening of restrictions on family remittances and family travel to Cuba would be the start of normalization.  Obama quoted or paraphrased John F Kennedy in this exchange - which I find ironic due to the problems Kennedy had with Cuba - in that we should “never negotiate out of fear but should never fear to negotiate.”

In follow up on this issue, Clinton presented a plan for diplomatic relations with Cuba and other countries that would be bipartisan.  Obama stated he would, as the president, take a more active role in diplomacy so as to help undo the damage of the last seven years.

The next area of discussion was the economy.  Both candidates discussed no tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas.  Both candidates said that the Bush tax cuts would have to end for the higher level incomes.  Clinton did mention the income level of $200,000.  Obama did not mention a level.  Both quickly discussed ending loopholes. 

Obama mentioned tax credits for senior citizens making less than $50,000 and other citizens making less than $75,000.  He also said that the United states needed to set and keep high labor and environmental standards.  To get it done, he said there is the need for a working coalition for change.

Clinton, of course, said she was ready to help fix the US economy on Day One.  She made a well-accepted comment about the “wealthy and well-connected have had their president for the last seven years” and the rest of American needs a president now.  She says she would institute a “trade timeout” so that trade agreements could be reviewed and evaluated as to wehter they are working or not.  She pointed out that she has been calling for a foreclosure moratorium for 90 days and an interest rate freeze for five years.  While these issues are good vote getters, I am still waiting for someone to tell people that if you make $100,000 a year, you should understand that you cannot afford a $750,000 house.  Clinton also said three prong attact to get the economy back on track - clean, green jobs which she tried to get put into the Bush economic stimulus package; investment in our infrastructure; and end the George W Bush war on science.

Although I thought the debate took too many breaks, I am going to take one now and continue the remainder of my thoughts on the debate later.

Austin is Tonight

I so want to quote a Blake Shelton song about Austin.  But the statement is not that I still love Austin but does Austin - and the rest of Texas - still love Hillary.

I am sitting here wishing that I could have designed the site for tonight’s CNN/Univision/Texas Democratic Party debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  This needs to be a debate - not a gathering around the proverbial kitchen table.  The set needs to include normal debate items.  Podiums would be a good start in my mind.  Who likes to be able to reach out and touch the opposition as you are saying they are all fluff or inexperienced?  Maybe a few professional boxers and the people in the MMA (isn’t that where they cage fight?) but not the normal politician.  Now I realize that the American people, according to every pundit out there, do not want the normal politician but I, for one, want the normal debate.

I want podiums with space between them.  I want the two candidates to take a swipe or two at each other.  I want to see the differences between the two of them, not the love fest that was Los Angeles.

What will happen tonight around the “debate table?”  I can’t wait to find out.

Public Election Financing

Okay - I understand that John McCain is not the fundraiser that Barack Obama seems to be.  I, also, understand that John McCain has a history of wanting campaign finance reform - hence, the McCain-Feingold bill.  I, also, understand that both John McCain and Barack Obama said, last fall, that they would abide by public financing and FEC rules on spending should they be their party’s nominee.

Here is one more thing I understand.  Barack Obama is trying to reset the rule now that he has started raising massive amounts of money.  He wants to, as paraphrased from his piece in the February 20th USA Today work toward a spending agreement with the republican nominee if he is the democratic nominee. 

I can see John McCain using this sudden flip-flop in Obama’s stance against him and he has tried.  Unfortunately, I do not believe McCain has a leg to stand on.  He has recently told the FEC that he is withdrawing from public financing for his primary run.  The main reason, as I see it, is that his campaign is close to the spending limit for primaries.  If he doesn’t withdraw, the democrats will still be deciding on a nominee and McCain will be silent all the way to the Republican National Convention at the beginning of September in St Paul.  This would include the small period of time between the Democratic National Convention and the republican nominating party.

Why is it that Obama is having his character scrutinized due to wanting to change the rules midstream (maybe something the Clinton campaign should look at pointing out as Hillary is being accused of that in the case of wanting to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan) but McCain is not?  Why is it that what is good for McCain in his primary is not good for all in the general?

Is this a smart thing to say?

I realize the democratic party is worried about getting itself unified if a frontrunner is not clearly defined soon.  But should one of those running for the party’s nomination say that those who vote after March 4, 2008 don’t matter.

“Now we’ve got to campaign hard in Texas and Ohio. But after March 4th, I think the party’s going to have to take a look and see if it’s time for us to go ahead and move forward with a nomination,” he (Barack Obama) said on NBC television.

This statement means to me that he feels that a nomination does not take place at the party’s convention.  He is appearing arrogant and conceited by saying something like this.  I am sure that his opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is thinking the same thing concerning her campaign but she is, at least, smart enough, and possible humble enough, to not say it to a major news outlet.

The Situation Room

Jack Cafferty, on CNN’s The Situation Room, just asked the following question:  “If you could choose any former U.S president to lead this country now, who would it be and why? “

I could not get to the computer fast enough to rattle off my thoughts to Jack on this question.  The answer came to me rather quickly and without much hesitation.  I would choose Jimmy Carter.  I can almost hear all the heckling from the peanut gallery.

No, I don’t think that Carter’s presidency was stellar.  I do, though, think that the progress he has made since his presidency for the betterment of humanity across the world have made him just the man for the United States during the turbulent times we are currently in and we are headed for in the future.

Political Musings

I must be psychic.  Just this morning I was thinking I should be - instead of blogging about my youngest child going south for the weekend - blogging about my thoughts on which party is going to get wise first.  I truly believe this is going to be the telltale sign of who will end up winning the general election in November.

The infighting and sniping at each other has become continuous in both the democratic and the republican primaries now that both are down to two people.  The democrats, as the race seems so much closer by the numbers, are getting nastier quicker but the republicans - and that should be read the frontrunner, John McCain, as Mike Huckabee seems to be running a fairly clean campaign - are also getting in on it.

Does either party not realize this is not what voters want?  I don’t think the voters mind a candidate - even one extremely behind like Huckabee - appealing a primary result when there may have been some irregularities.  I do think that voters mind the constant personal picking that goes on between those whose policies are close to the same so there is little to differentiate between them.

It currently looks like the GOP is going to pull it together.  Mitt Romney is going to endorse John McCain.  He is going to tell the party to pull together behind the presumptive nominee.  He is going to free his delegates to go to McCain.  This is not something that a suspended campaign does.  It is what an ended campaign does. 

I find this particularly disturbing in that Romney had many problems with McCain when they were opponents.  Is it necessary to endorse someone that you have already told the public that you don’t agree with?  Is it necessary to back someone with him you disagree?  Could Romney not just ask that his delegates be freed from their allegiance to him?

Whether I agree with Romney’s endorsement or not, I do agree that the GOP needs to rally behind one candidate and not have a conservative break when that candidate is not a true conservative.