I will say that while I support Bob Barr for the Presidency, he is far from my ideal Libertarian candidate. Many in Libertarian circles wish they would have seen Ron Paul get the Republican nomination, but it just wasn't meant to be this time around. However, Bob Barr is still the best of all three candidates running for the Office of the Presidency, and he's the only candidate who's talking about returning the Presidency to it's Constitutional limits, as well as putting a stop to wasteful government spending.

One answer that really threw me for a loop from Bob was when he was asked what his favorite Constitutional Amendment was. His response... "The 2nd." Wow Bob - guns over freedom of speech or property rights??? I think he was caught off guard, and just blurted out the first thing that came to mind, and Glenn Beck called him on it immediately.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

The role of the United States presidency has changed over time in some interesting ways, and most of these changes have been more a reflection of the changes in the social and political situation in the U.S. and the world than legislation, amendment, or judicial tweaking of the actual structure of government, although these factors have been important. The U.S. presidency has changed from the chief negotiator, both among the states and with foreign powers, to the face and representation of collective American values, policy, and direction. While this position serves its purpose, it is beyond the originally intended role of president and comes with some disadvantages and distractions from the intended function of the office.When the Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation, the structure of the United States was still conceived more as a union of individual states. U.S.A. 2.0 improved the relations between the states, allowing Congress not only to issue a common currency but also to improve interstate communications and relations by building postal infrastructure and roads, regulate interstate and international trade, define weights and measures, and impose common recognition of state-issued legal documents, all necessities made obvious by the breakdown of interstate relations under the Articles. The function of the federal government was closer to the function today of the European Union.

Where the central government has most authority over individual states is in the area of foreign relations. The United States act as one body in questions of defense, foreign policy, and the negotiation of treaties. The states obviously have a say in this, through the representatives and senators they send to Congress, but international policy is mainly, structurally, the work of the Administrative Branch and the president.

The role of the president, while it has expanded greatly, has always been very important. The president is not ultimately the final word in the lawmaking process as a 2/3 majority can override a veto, but a simple majority is only enough to pass a bill into law with the president's approval. But the president is only meant to approve or deny the passage of legislation, and only federal legislation, which was originally meant to almost exclusively cover the areas concerning interstate relations. The president is only a balance of legislative power, and is specifically forbidden from submitting legislation to Congress for their consideration.

The most important functions of the presidency are the power of appointment and to be the architect of foreign policy and the head diplomat of the nation. The president is the commander of the armed forces, although theoretically unable to wage war without Congressional approval, and while unable to submit legislation concerning internal U.S. policy to Congress, the president is responsible for negotiating treaties with foreign states, and submitting these treaties for Congressional approval.

The individual states decided the manner in which the electors in the Electoral College were chosen, and in the beginning it was generally by state legislature. It would be a long time before all states agreed upon a popular vote determining who would receive the state's electoral vote, and even in this system, as you probably already realize, this is very different from a direct popular vote. The citizens' role in choosing the president is basically a state-by-state ballot initiative. But I won't go into that here.

Today the role of the presidency has changed, possibly because people yearn for a national figure, possibly because news coverage is most pervasive on a national level. People look to the president as a representative of the United States not just in the world and in interstate relations but as the main proponent of policy, the center of public discussion, and the final responsible party for the nation's strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures. The president is seen as the "moral compass" for the nation even in affairs over which this office technically has little power.

We find ourselves voting values over competence, patriotism over policy, and personal history over political promise. Even I have this tendency; one of the big selling points for me in voting for John Kerry was my idea that having a national symbolic face today, as our nation is bogged down once more in foreign wars, who worked with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War would have been culturally significant.

Even the Democrats constantly talk about McCain's status of war hero as being just barely not a good enough reason to vote for him. A war hero is great, but a former prisoner of war who served our country with honor deserves an excellent and dignified retirement package, not a symbolic place as head of state.

Rather than a national clerk or a monarch or whatever position inbetween, the presidency today is more like an online social networking thumbs up-thumbs down vote on which of two options presented best represents our perception of our national identity. It's more reminiscent of the up and coming marketing technique of compiling data on your customer base and putting together an "ideal customer profile", putting an invented face on who you're trying to market to.

Today we have split data. About half of our customers, it seems from the demographic data presented to us, fit into the Republican group, and the other half into the Democrat group. Is our "ideal American profile" a wisened old veteran, a former prisoner of war and a hero, who is willing to work across the aisle and yet remains loyal to his base of Christian values voters, and who, while he knows the horrors of war, is not afraid to put up a good fight, or is the "ideal American profile" the young upstart from a diverse background who pulled himself up "by his bootstraps", the underdog who defeated the primary candidate we all thought would win?

Policy is secondary to this question, and policy is only brought up as it applies to the question of who best represents us, which is unfortunate because we're not talking about a powerless figurehead but a politician with a very specific job. The presidential candidates mostly talk about internal issues, safe ground when all they can do in the end is pass or veto what Congress puts on their desk.

For internal issues, we should be turning to our own local and state candidates. A national program to improve education would be great, but electing an excellent school board could have the same effect. We have more power to make change on a local level by being active in local politics than we do to make change on a national level by electing a figurehead whose job isn't policymaking.

The president is the person to turn to in foreign policy, but the discussion on foreign policy is limited to just a couple of very limited news items. We do not have a real discussion on foreign policy which includes in-depth ideas on trade, world poverty, or the covert political action, such as funding military dictatorships and undermining democracies which are not in line with our business efforts, we have taken in foreign nations for decades. The only things we generally tend to discuss are a few "rogue states", the wars we've started, and very occasionally AIDS.

Right up there with foreign policy is the presidential power of appointment. Secretaries and judges can have a profound impact on policy, and there is generally almost no discussion of cabinet or judges during an election, no names are proposed, and Congressional oversight on appointment has been historically lax.

The president is more than just the face of the national identity, the president has an important job to do which has a real effect on the lives of Americans and an important position in the world. We need to focus more on policy and demand that policy questions be answered, rather than wasting our time pursuing candidates with invasive and nationally embarrassing questions concerning their own personal lives. We do need to make sure we're not hiring a crook (something we're notoriously bad at) but we don't need to hire our favorite movie hero for the job either.

• Abortion was now illegal
• Gay marriage was now illegal
• All illegal immigrants were forced to leave the US or face being executed
• We were in the middle of WWIII
• Global warming was getting worse
• Taxes were raised, yet education and health care was as bad as it's ever been

If McCain wins, we as a family are screwed because he will try to bleed the last cent out of us and we'll end up living with Nick's mom or something. I'll go back to the UK before that even happens.

Palin vetoed Alaska Sate Bill HB 4001.  Her advisers had told her that HB 4001 was unconstitutional.  So rather than go through the court costs, she vetoed the bill.   But, she signed HB 4002 - to put these benefits up to a non-binding vote of the people.

To summarize, Palin doesn't believe in same-sex benefits but the bill as written was unconstitutional so she vetoed it to avoid any court costs that would come about as a result of the law.  Then, she signed a second bill asking the Alaskan electorate to choose in a NONBINDING resolution.

The Alaska court ruled about a year before that the state had to provide those benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, but instead of just giving those benefits, Palin pushed for a nonbinding referendum on those benefits.

Alaska is a small place.  The cost of the benefits to tax payers would have been about $313,000.  The cost of the referendum was about $1.2 million.  So she spent $1.2 million to save $313,000.  Hmm, doesn't sound too fiscally conservative to me.  But then again, gay rights were at stake, and you just can't put a price on defeating those.

In the course of all of this Palin used the words, and I am paraphrasing here, "Some of my best friends are gay people".  Yeah, I know.

Well, it's nice to know that you can trust that some things will never change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2940588620080829?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

What shocked me the most is not that he picked a woman veep, as that actually looks to be a pretty smart move on his part. What got me is the fact that she really doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and that will hurt him in the eyes of informed voters, especially when you take his age into account.

Whomever wins, this will be a historic election. Now lets stop running ads all the time, and get this over with.

-Patrick

It seems that after weeks of criticizing Obama for inexperience and judgment, Grandpa Simpson has decided to go with a candidate with no national experience and whose judgement, by evidence of her current ethics investigation, is at best, suspect.

Right-wing clowns will try to rationalize that a one-term governor of a state with a population that is less than many small American cities is not the same thing as being as U.S. Senator— it's better! they'll argue. But c'mon, these people have no principles and will argue (read: SAY) anything to win.

The naked opportunism is another matter all together. Does Grandpa McSimpson actually think that he can pick up disgruntled Hillary voters simply by choosing someone with a vagina? How stupid does he think women are? Oh yeah,remember his rape joke? Or how he calls his own Sugar Mama a "cunt"?

I guess he does actually think women are that stupid. But c'mon he ain't the brightest guy in the world anyhow. (See his Annapolis scores. Where did this spoiled brat of privilege place in his class? Why, at the bottom of course-- He is a Republican, after all.)

Side note: remember Karl Rove whining like the little bitch that he is, that if Obama chose Gov. Tim Kaine, it would show a "purely political choice" that ignores the "responsibilities of the presidency"? What are the odds Rove or Fox et al will admit the same here? LOL... yeah, I know.... just thought I'd finish with a joke bigger than the GOP.

McCain selects.... Palin for ...? I am not sure about this pick. Granted McCain is experienced and does not need that boost. So, I guess he was looking for the boost in VOTES on the side of the younger generations and women. But if anyone thinks they can convince people she could be the next president, they are sadly mistaken. I found this quote from an Aug 1st, 2008 interview with CNBC about the possibilities of being the next Vice President:

As for the prospect of her being vice president, Palin told Kudlow that she could not answer the question of whether she wanted the job “until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day. I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here.”

.... ummm, Vice President, you know the first in line to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? WOW! 

I can't wait to see the debates this year. Obama vs McCain should be interesting, but Biden vs Palin should be .... indescribable.

Tina Fey played the part of some Alaskan woman who was a Governor who has a husband who races snow mobiles, and has children with names like Track and Trig.  Oh and Ms. Fey parodied Rudy Guliani by saying "September 11th" several times in her acceptance speech. 

John McCain, in his introduction to, said he "found" someone from a hard-working middle class family.  He actually had to go out and "find" one.  He didn't choose one or pick one, he "found" one.  And that is because in John McCain's circle, hard-working, middle-class people are hard to find.  When you live a life of privilege and luxury, he must have gone out and used "the google" to search for one of the middle class people.  I wasn't really a joke but Saturday Night Live  likes to be "topical" sometimes.

Tina Fey even parodied George Bush himself by pronouncing "nukyaler" just like George.  Hysterical!!!

And then, get this, she used the title of John F. Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage" as a comparison to John McCain.  I could go on about how this character eats moose-burgers and is a member of the NRA but I don't want to ruin it for you when you see it on You-Tube.

Oh that Tina Fey, she is so damned funny.  But I still miss Jimmy Fallon.

Ok, so before I go into my post, I just gotta say that I completely disagree with you. I was involved in politics at age sixteen, but I was not ready to vote. And waiting until one is 18 to be able to drive hinders quite a bit of learning of responsibility.

But that isn't what I wanted to write about tonight. I wanted to write about the Democratic National Convention, and Barack Obama's acceptance speech. Now, it is no secret that I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm also socially progressive. In Canada, I'm a member of the Conservative Party. But in the United States, I would probably end up registering as an Independent.

Anyways, tonight, I watched Obama deliver his acceptance speech, and I couldn't feel anything less than inspired, and a witness to history. Yes, the Democratic Party has nominated the first African-American to lead a major party ticket. But they have also selected someone who embodies real change, not someone who uses change as a buzzword to gain electoral support. After watching tonight, I am convinced that not only does the United States need Barack Obama, but the entire global community is in need of his leadership.

So, there's not much I can do here in Canada, but hope that he is able to win the election against a formidable and admirable opponent. I shall watch with anticipation, and hope that those I know with duel citizenship take the time to vote in the election.

On the 45th Anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech," it might be surprising to remember that Dr. King, Jr. was a Republican.  MLK's niece also verfies this fact and further explains that resistance most often came from Democrats:

No one batted an eye when President Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. Hardly a ripple of protest was uttered when President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated on suspicion of being a Communist.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech tonight will be and is an historic event. But the great irony is that the Republican administrations since the days of Abraham Lincoln through the modern Civil Rights Movement have significantly helped make the first presidential nominee acceptance speech by an African American possible---even though it's for the Democrat Party. 

Hat Tip Bob McCarty.

By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN | Counterpunch, August 27, 2008

Pakistan has been unsuccessful in designing a stable presidency. Two competing models vie for approval. Pakistan's formulaic constitution, borrowed from the legal-political traditions of England and India, establishes a ceremonial presidency subordinated to parliament. The president with few powers is the head of state and represents the unity of the Republic. The ceremonial presidency empowers elected assemblies to run affairs of the state and provinces in accordance with the wishes of the people. It also spawns political cronyism, allowing politicians to freely broker power relations, distribute ministries and governmental offices on the basis of connection rather than competence and, for the worse, use state resources to advance personal and family interests.

The competing model, which Pakistan's generals as well as American policymakers prefer, institutes a strong presidency - a praetorian presidency - that listens to the armed forces and kow-tows to American interests. Under the praetorian model, the President exercises formidable powers, appoints heads of the armed forces, and can dissolve dysfunctional or discordant elected assemblies. Even the judiciary is made subservient to the President. The praetorian presidency empowers what Pakistanis call the establishment—a congregation of bureaucrats, army generals, advisers, and experts. The praetorian presidency focuses on economy and foreign relations. But it alienates political forces and weakens elected assemblies. Consequently, corruption permeates the state machinery with little or no accountability.

The nomination of Asif Zardari, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, to contest the presidential election is a disturbing development. If elected, President Zardari would further muddle the models of presidency. Zardari might not use the iron hand of praetorian presidency, as did General Pervez Musharraf, to please the establishment and foreign masters. Under no circumstance, however, will Zardari be the ceremonial president.

Ceremonial Presidency

The ceremonial presidency works best when the president is a non-political, consensus figure enjoying the trust of major political parties. Ideally, the ceremonial president is a person of great stature, unimpeachable character, and favorable reputation. The ceremonial president must not be the head of any political party, nor must the ceremonial president be ideologically inclined toward a certain foreign policy, domestic agenda, or political set up. This apparent neutrality of the ceremonial presidency generates confidence among political forces that the state is open to political diversity and pluralism.

Zardari does not qualify to be a ceremonial president. Though many criminal cases filed against Zardari were fabricated, his reputation is sullied with charges of corruption. His recent conduct to make and break political accords regarding the restoration of judges also leaves the impression that Zardari equates the art of politics with amoral cunningness rather than tough bargaining over controversial issues.

Furthermore, Zardari is politically too powerful to be a ceremonial president. He is the co-chairman of Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the party in power. The other chairman is Zardari's own son. This family hold on the rank and file of the PPP will continue to exist even if Zardari resigns from co-chairmanship. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, a member of the PPP, is unlikely to challenge President Zardari on the theory that the Prime Minster has the constitutional powers to run the country. For all practical purposes, therefore, Zardari will run the country as the top man even if the praetorian presidency is constitutionally dismantled.

Praetorian Presidency

In opposing Musharraf, the PPP was planning to introduce a complex constitutional package in the parliament to cut down powers of the praetorian presidency. Almost all political parties favor restoring the constitution to its formulaic format. This political consensus will now fall apart. If Zardari is elected to be the president, the PPP would most likely withdraw the constitutional package. The constitution, as it stands, confers huge powers on the president. Zardari would want to retain these powers in case the political tide turns against him or the PPP.

Even the United States would prefer that the constitution remains as is, and that the praetorian presidency is not weakened. It is easier for the U.S. to deal with one strong man at the top than with an elected parliament accountable to the people. The U.S. can fight the war in Afghanistan more effectively if Pakistan furnishes its intelligence and armed resources to defeat the Taliban and foreign fighters. Pakistan's praetorian presidency can deliver these resources to satisfy U.S. interests in the region, including the pressure on Iran. Zardari, a powerful man who cannot overcome the reputation of being a crook, is a godsend for the U.S. In the past, the U.S. has deftly exploited praetorian characters, such as Manual Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Pervez Musharraf, for its global interests.

Pakistan under Zardari

Regardless of whether the constitution is restored to ceremonial presidency, Pakistan is in for a rough ride under Zardari. Now that the coalition has split, Zardari's personal character will be politicized, highlighting his past criminal record. A sullied civilian president will diminish the nation's confidence in political rule. The insurgents in Pakistan's tribal areas will intensify their battle against the government, increasing suicide bombings. The war in Afghanistan will spill over the border into Pakistan, as the U.S. daringly strikes the terrorist infrastructure on both sides of the border. Engaged in inter-personal politics, the government will have little time to solve the nation's basic problems, including shortages of electricity, fuel, and clean water.

Ali Khan is professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, and the author of the book, A Theory of Universal Democracy (2003).

The real laughing point for me was watching the post-speech coverage on Larry King who comes on live at 12:00 midnight during this weeks convention. His "panel" was 4 Republicans who spent an hour tring to somehow defend John McCain and downplay the Democrats (big surprise).  Their biggest defense was that Hillary didn't specifically say that Barack Obama was qualified to be President.

She's at the damned convention, it's his convention, she said "No way, no how, no McCain", she said "the future of our country and our children is at stake"; who the Hell do you think she was talking about.  She said she was voting for Obama.  She didn't have to check with her staff to see how many houses she had (sorry, had to get that in).

So all the republicans have left is "Hillary didn't specifically say that Obama was qualified to be President" and "John McCain is a P.O.W."

Further, McCain doesn't have a platform anymore other than replaying old comments that Hillary and Joe Biden said about Barack Obama (months ago when every Democrat running for President said anything to gain ground in the Democratic Primary), plus "John McCain is a P.O.W."  The McCain camp isn't speaking at all about what they are for, what they are against, what they will do for this country, what they will do about the war, the economy or anything else.  All they've got are comments by other Democrats and "John McCain is a P.O.W"

I will not deny that being a prisoner of war is the most god-awful thing someone could go through.  I don't think I could have handled it.  But I have two point about that.  First, what about being in a prisoner of war camp qualifies you to be President.   Second, if you were in a P.O.W. camp, what would you be doing that prepared you for being President.  Being denied food? - well I guess if you wanted to identify with the poor or people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.  Beaten and tortured? - well, if you wanted to learn how police in America treat minorities or unfounded "enemy combatants" in secret prisons.  Other than that, I don't see how a P.O.W. learns about the economy in a prison camp.  And I"m pretty sure they didn't worry much about gas prices or how to make the mortgage payment, or how to send their kids to college.

Again, I have complete respect for anyone who goes through what a P.O.W. does, but if John McCain want to put it on the table as credentials for the Presidency, I have to call like I see it.

Like I said earlier I am not a big Hilary or Bill fan but I do feel they were given a raw deal in all of this and how the media just went after Obama and all the jokes made about Hilary I think were wrong. If you cannot joke around about someone's race (WHICH I DO NOT CONDONE) then you should not be joking around about someone's sex especially in the context of a candidate for President. I think she has handled it like a pro and really feel she is more presidential than Obama. I think he really should have gotten more experience under his belt. I feel he will lose. He is for "change" but the polls even after his nomination for VP and two days into the convention have dropped for the first time ever. I think people are seeing that he is not experienced and not sure he can run the country. Bush's numbers are even going up in the polls. I think the McCain ads are awesome too. I think Saddleback really helped McCain and did show how inexperienced Obama is. They keep linking McCain to Bush but McCain has gone against his party and crossed party line more than anyone I know. He tends to be more moderate on the Republican side. I actually agree crossing party lines for the greater good. I just don't see how this will hold up that he is a Bush lover when he has voted against his own party on a number of issues. I know the American people are smarter than that and the polls show it.

On a side note, there is a new ad from McCain about Obama and his comments about Iran being a tiny country that does not pose a threat. His foreign affairs spokes person stated that the McCain camp twisted his words. She said, "Iran does not pose a threat to the US like Russia did." Is she smoking something. Iran has made threat after threat and I do believe with all my heart they will act on at the right moment. We need to be ready.

What would Marting Luther King Jr. say about what is going on today in American politics? I can't say for sure. I never knew Martin Luther King Jr. and when he was gunned down on the fateful day in Memphis, Tennessee, I was only 3 and a half years old.

On November 4, 2008, in the wee hours of the morning, or even beyond that, as recent elections have made seem possible, Barack Obama may become the next President Elect of the United States of America. And on January 20, 2008 when Barack Obama takes the oath of office with his hand, his head, and his heart held high, swearing to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution and to protect all of us within its borders, Martin Luther King Jr., I believe, would be proud.

Not because after all these years, an African American has become President of the United States "even though" he is black. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud because Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, and the fact that he is black makes no difference at all.

Ok, so over the weekend, we had some exciting news...Obama's running mate for the Presidency. My thoughts are these:

!) I am pretty irritated with the fact that Biden did not know Obama's name

2) Obama slipped up and called Biden the next president of the US.

3) Hillary and her camp just won't go away. She has caused so much dissension within the Democratic Party instead of being a team player that she may have helped Obama lose. By the way, my disdain for Hillary has caused me to turn a deaf ear to her and her complaints. I have lost respect for her and I wish she would just accept her loss and do something else with her time.

I am not really sure about how I feel about Obama's choice for VP. Supposedly, Biden has discredited Obama's ability to lead prior to becoming the VP selection. I want to know how good was the offer for this job to make him change his mind. Also, I want to know if I can even trust what this guy has to say. More importantly, I wonder if this was Obama's choice at all. He had a selection committee. ALthough he had some say, I believe that the DNC probably had a huge amount of input in this.

What do all of the key players have to gain? This inquiring mind would like to know. I still support Obama. However, I am a bit fatigued about all of the analysis and speculation that has been done over the past few days. I am going to just back away from the media for a bit and be present for the election.

My head is absolutely swimming in confusion and frustration hearing commentators and analysts speculate about what is happening and what might happen. No one really knows until after the day of the election what is real. People will show up in the voting booths. Hopefully, the smartest people in the country will be able to see through all of these smoke screens and make history in 2008.

Truly Tired of All of the Politics,

JSC