Pear Head

POLITICO reported earlier today that the DNC will file a complaint to the FEC regarding John McCain’s campaign spending.

Quoting the DNC committee, Jonathan Martin reported,

“According to McCain’s latest campaign filing, he has already spent $49.6 million and given that a month has passed, he has exceeded or is about to exceed the approximately $56.8 million spending limit [in the primary],” the committee said in a press released issued in conjunction with an afternoon conference call by Howard Dean intended to draw attention to the matter.

Evidently, John McCain is attempting to free himself from public financing restrictions by withdrawing from the public campaign finance system. The DNC rejects this option, calling attention to fund-matching obligations and ballot access legalities. By committing to public funds last year under McCain-Feingold, it seems McCain has gotten himself into a “quagmire of his own design.”

Former FEC chair Brad Smith published a deliciously loquacious article on the topic of Matching Funds, and had this to say of John McCain’s finance obligations. I wont make you read the whole thing:

MCCAIN COMMITS

John McCain was one of these candidates who announced that he would not take the money. Then McCain’s campaign hit its early summer implosion. McCain’s fundraising was flat, his campaign broke. Many thought McCain would pack it in. But McCain cut his staff, focused almost all his resources on New Hampshire, and applied for the matching funds, to “keep the option open.” In fact, on August 20 of last year he became the first candidate the FEC approved for matching funds for the 2008 campaign.

Smith claims later in the article that a simple approval for matching funds alone does not “lock” one into the public system. It’s more complicated than that. In fact, a blessed mixture of adroit lawyering and vague semantics will probably put McCain in the free. At least that’s what Smith and other policy experts think. Smith quotes Mark Scarberry, a professor at Pepperdine Law School. Scarberry said:

If I were a lender, and a candidate who could not repay the loan refused to access funds that were available to repay the loan, I would think that the candidate was acting very, very unreasonably, and perhaps in bad faith. A commitment to access such funds if needed would seem almost to be implied, if we assume the candidate honestly wants to repay the loan. And isn’t it the case that every unsuccessful candidate who qualifies for public funds, and who has not yet exceeded spending limits, ends up asking for them, at least if they are needed to repay loans?

This leads me to conclude that McCain’s promise (if he made one), should not prevent McCain from withdrawing his application for public funds. He did not use the opportunity to obtain public funds to convince the lenders to provide the loans to any greater degree than he could have had he not applied for the funds.

Although the opportunity to obtain public funds may have been used to “secure” the loans (in the sense of “obtain” the loans), the loans were not “secured” by the right to the public funds (in the sense of the right being collateral for the loans). The lenders would not be entitled to be repaid from the public funds ahead of any other creditors of McCain (or of whatever related entity obtained the loans).

The real problem has to do with Ohio ballot access law. According to Ohio law, you have to do one of two things to get on the ballot: get a load of signatures all over the state at significant financial and temporal cost (e.g., Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, Rudy) ... or present FEC matching funds to the Secretary of State. Apparently McCain chose the latter, and this presents a bit of a problem. But does this mean McCain is bound by FEC rules? Even Smith admits being flummoxed. I don’t have a clue, but I think the humble Straight-Talk express is in for a bit of a detour.

First, the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, visited California yesterday as a guest of the Governor. His address was titled, “Americans are Bigots and should give California back to Mexico.” Go here for an AP article on the event. I love it when corrupt leaders of failing states come traipsing into America and tell us we need to improve. Rather than calling for comprehensive American immigration reform, maybe he should do something to end comprehensive Mexican migration. Smarmy accolades and genuflections abounded, as the Governor, the First Lady, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, and other mindless socialists “celebrated” America’s confluvial intercourse with Mexico.

Second, is this little piece lifted from the Constitution Party website:

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

While I agree with the above seven points, as far as I can tell, the existence of the CP is a fairly obvious inconsistency in and of itself. The Constitution Party claims to represent the intents of the Founders, and this may be true in principle; yet the founders were opposed to the formation of all political parties. Where does this leave the CP? They probably mean well, but political change needs to begin with independent voices, and this requires a lot more effort, and maybe even a little redundancy.

I’m going to start off the day with an excerpt from the Constitution describing the powers and authorities of the executive branch.

Article II Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I clipped this from here.

私は保守的な政見のある家族に育たれた。 保守的原則と保守的考え方が正しいと信じる。 そして、その世界観があるのは、保守的環境のなかに知識を得たことだけかもしれないが、 自分が持っている政見より大切なのは正直なんだ。 左翼の人も、右翼の人も、度々知的に不正直なんだから、私は両方と意見が合わない時は沢山ある。 でも、正直に考える左翼の人とも、良い、生産的な会話できる。

今日、THIRDPARTYWATCH と言うサイトではマッケーンについての記事があって、マッケーンが前に言ったイラクについての声明が不正直に説明された。詳細が知りたいなら、ここをクリックしてくださいが、用はマッケーンの意見は、日本とドイツと同じようにアメリカの軍隊は長い間(百年までも）イラクに留まるかもしれないけど、大切なのは滞在の期間じゃなくて、死傷者の数なんだっていうこと。 これが徹底的にロジックの声明なのに、多くの人がその意味をゆがめようとする。 そして、驚くことはそうするのは右派じゃなくて、左派なんだ。 私は次の左派人と同じようにマッケーンが嫌いで、信用しないひとだと思うけど、何時も、何の意見があっても知的正直にいるべきと思う。

サインイング・オッフ

In today’s Politco/ABC interview, Hillary Clinton had this to say about John McCain.

—About Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), she cracked: “Luckily, I agree with my party more than Senator McCain agrees with his party.”

If this doesn’t presage what is to come, I don’t know what does. Just wait until they start playing the line, “I think Hillary’d make a great president!” The RP is in trouble.

今朝、ラジオをつけて、政見伴奏を聞こうと思うところで、政治アンニュイに満たされ、チャネルを変えて音楽で緊張をほぐした。 どうして、急にそう感じたのだろうか？ヤッパリ好きな立候補者(ミット・ロムニー）がドロップ(キャンペーンの一時停止）したことは一つの理由なんだけど、本当の原因は一般的不満なんだ。大多数の政治家は国の運命をゲームにして、民衆の必要を考えないのだから。今朝、その思いがいきなり心についた。

せめて、高々知識のある彼ら政治家は知的に正直じゃないから、私と他の多くのアメリカ人にはフラストレーションがある。良心に反するにも、権威が欲しい政治家はデマの策略を使用する。でも最悪は民衆は騙され、考えなくデマに喜んで応ずり、聖なる民主的なプロセスによってこそ、自分の国の滅亡を助けてしまう。

バラック・オバマの言うこと、またそのメッセジに対する大興奮はさっき説明した原則を明らかにする例。オバマは甘い、誰でも聴きたい、信じたいことを言ったりして、多くの人を騙している。でも、言うことにサブスタンスは不足してるから、本当にやりたいことを隠れているにちがいない。オバマはただ一つの例なんで、他の多くの政治家は全く同じ風に行動する。民衆の成長と保護よりも自分のアムビションや権力欲が優先するのは本当に悲しい事実なのだ。

What do you think a third-party/independent president would do for American politics? Is that a lame question?

I’ll start us off:

Naturally, I think the result would be contingent upon the political flavor of the candidate. Would a third-party/independent liberal candidate be good? I’m going to say no, just because I think liberalism is a cancerous ideology and is never good; so it doesn’t matter whether they’re independent, party-affiliated, or otherwise, because I think the philosophy of liberalism is dangerous. Would a third-party/independent conservative candidate be good compared to an established party candidate? I want to say yes, but I’m not sure. Could they get more done, being free from large party obligations and loyalties—maybe. I would like to think so.

I’ll make this quick.

Romney’s surrender to McCain was a brilliant political maneuver. I’ll give my remarks from that standpoint, assuming as a given all the altruistic motivations Romney expressed so well in his CPAC speach. Go here to read it.

Here are the tactical reasons behind the bow-out:

1.) Romney positioned himself as the conservative leader of the party, an enviable position come 2012 and really remarkable considering his start last year. He’s done well to espouse all the tried-and-true conservative principles.

2.) It made Huckabee look petty and egocentric, while elevating Romney to a superpolitical sphere: Romney took the initiative and bowed out for a higher cause, and he looked so darned dignified doing it. He left the stage with the crowed begging for more. Meanwhile, Huckabee’s somewhere in his populous wilderness, disoriented and wondering why he didn’t get the memo.

3.) The disparaging label of ‘flip-flopper’ that has so tenaciously followed Romney about (literally, in the form of a dolphin-suited stalker) has been wrung out and hung out to dry by incessant inter-party attacks. It should be a non-issue in the next election, providing him with the ability to more fully unite the nation. He now has four more years to solidify his conservative image. An image that is absolutely merited by the way he’s conducted his life.

4.) His bona fides as an economic turn-around specialist will be seductively appealing in 2012 after a disastrous Democratic presidency (assuming Hillary or Barack win). Should McCain win, we can expect he is good for only one term.

5.) Suspending but not ending his campaign, his chances for VP (setting him up as “incumbent” after the four year McCain term) are now much better than Huckabee , whose whole reason for staying in the race is to obtain VPship. Huckabee won’t get it, as he looks more than ever like a spoiler, and McCain is a notorious back-stabber. Rest assured, though, Romney’s not the only one who has his sites set on 2012.

Independent Conservative voices like Michael Savage and Michael Levin expressed livid antagonism to the all but certain McCain nomination yesterday. Both Savage and Levin host late evening radio talk-shows promoting stalwart conservative independence devoid of traditional party or lobby loyalty ties. Michael Savage has been a harsh critic of current president Bush in the past on issues ranging from immigration to national security.

Independent Conservative voices contribute to the political dialog by maintaining a vantage point free from the apparent ulterior incentives or obligations that frequently plague the image of other conservative talk-show hosts. The question at hand, however, is whether obscure maverick voices can make a difference in the current presidential race. Admittedly, there has been a swell in recent days of anti-McCain activists intent on sticking to their conservative guns, i.e., not to vote for McCain at any cost; but history seems to indicate a populous with the memory of a fish; and, so, the stop-the-McCain-express movement will likely sink into near-oblivion in a matter of months. A frontal Hillary/Obama attack may be all it takes to catalyze a mass-rally behind the undoubtedly aconservative John McCain.

OK here is my two-cents: Stay strong conservative bedrock of America! Bush 2 has been bad for conservatism with countless sins of omission—McCain with blatant perfidy. Party loyalty is a control tactic, not an obligation.

I’ve thought about this long and hard and it was a difficult decision, but I’m decided. McCain won’t get my vote this November. I’ll write in my own name before I vote for him.

Read the rest of this entry

I published this a few days ago (before Super Tuesday) as a comment on Third Party Watch. Unfortunately, it appears to be coming true.

Here’s my extended presidential prediction:
• Romney loses nomination to McCain—Super Tuesday serves to coronate McCain as prohibitive front runner.
• McCain/Huckabee loses to Hillary/Obama (no surprise)
• Third party candidates make less than a splash in the actual outcome of race. Will the two party system’s dominance ever end?
• 2012—Romney runs second time and wins presidency due to exacerbated economic conditions.

The last line may be wishful thinking, but hey, it’s keeping me sane. Good day.

This is a response to Jonathan Martin’s article Romney Falls into McCain Trap on Iraq. I intended to publish it directly on POLITICO, but for the life of me, I cannot get that site to cooperate! I’ll just have to publish it here where no one will read it, but where I’ll feel better nonetheless.

Read the rest of this entry

I couldn’t sleep last night. The fate of the country weighed heavily upon my soul. Really, it did. And as I am want to do under such pitiful conditions, I held a grand debate in my mind, only without the helplessly inane moderators, but rather, with an imaginary Nestor who, holding me in a warm embrace, consuls me with his ineffable wisdom as I lament the state of the nation and puzzle over the best course of action.

Last night, gently interrupting my sorrowful soliloquy, my Nestor described a stark political landscape containing just three roads which I now call- for I can’t recall what names he gave them then- John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama; most perplexing was that he described these three roads or paths, each wide and seeming firm and secure in build, as diverging only slightly in initial trajectory and appearance, but bending and crossing over one another until in the end they all led to the same sorrowful nadir: A perfidious pit of moral turpitude crumbling at its edges and from within, filled with legions of men and women lacerating their own limbs and beating one another with thorny rods and whips and wailing with painful anguish.

The sight he described was so awful, Dante himself would have paled in disgust; yet as one turns away from a gruesome accident out of respect for those involved then looks back again with shameful curiosity, I persisted in my attention and learned that everyone one in the terrible pit, in a short time, lay immovable upon the floor; and in only a little more time, all was lifeless in that wretched place. The only remnant of the frightful furor that had been, the Teacher described, was now a swarm of buzzing flies pleased by the wanton carnage now at their disposal.

The prophecy moved me to tears and I held to my wise Guide, pressed with greater despair. He, seeing me so distraught, began also to weep and cried that all is not yet lost, for he had failed to mention that there is still another road that leads to the fecund field. “But this path,” said he, “is tortuous and narrow and must be taken willfully by millions over whom you have no control.”

The AP really irks me sometimes. They just can’t restrain themselves. Look at the picture they chose for the article, “Mormon church president dies at 97” and try to tell me they don’t have an ulterior motive: Mormon cult president dies at 97. Such a joke.

The fact that they have Glen Johnson covering Romney doesn’t make me feel any better. The picture is here.

I just checked the link, and they took the picture down. It’s been replaced with a different article. The picture can be seen here.

Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, passed away today in his home in Salt Lake City, Utah. Born in Salt Lake City on June 23, 1910, he was 97 years old. President Hinckley presided over the world-wide LDS church (commonly known as Mormonism) during a time of unprecedented growth. He lead the development of more LDS temples than any of his 14 predecessors and oversaw dramatic growth in South America and Africa. He was a great man and lead an exemplary life in the service of faith.

This development, if I dare call it one, shouldn’t really have any bearing on presidential politics, but I thought it was worth the mention. Given the circumstances it may have more of an impact than otherwise. We’ll have to wait and see. Right now, none of the major news organizations have reported the news.