Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

I'm a registered Republican.

I was going to vote for McCain.

But, after watching the democrat convention and really hearing Obama and Biden (who I've always liked) and McCains pick for VP Sarah Palin

I am voting for Obama.

I just can't reason any other way. The man is just plain good for the job.

reply to post by grover

I watched McCain try to make the case that Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama and I all but peed myself laughing . . . it was a pathetic exercise. To claim someone with less than a half term as governor of a small state (in terms of population) and two terms as mayor of a town of 6500, along with being on the PTA is qualified to be president is laughable. McCain in picking her just gave away his biggest argument against Obama, that he is not qualified to be president.

Say what you may, but just sitting in the Senate, a very select body of 100 members out of 300,000,000 people, with a hand picked staff for each senator numbering in the 100s, is itself informative. It is an unequaled experience (learning opportunity) just to rub elbows with the likes of Ted Kennedy. Charlie Hegel. Oren Hatch. Olympia Snow. Harry Reid. John Warner. Arlen Specter, the last man standing who served on the Warren Commission staff. Dick Lugar. And so on. A very select body. A body that is almost magically collegial when outside the MSM's controversy driven view.

Senators sit on committees that are charged with both the responsibility of considering the President's BUDGET and OVERSIGHT of the Administration. Anyone - John McCain for example - Barack Obama for another - having this kind of experience in governance has some genuine expertise in foreign affairs as well as domestic matters. That ought to be the underlying issue if not the public issue. And not facetiously comparing Alaska (pop. 650,000) to the rest of the world. See Note 1.

Can you imagine Sarah explaining to the United Nations just how invigorating to the soul it is to hunt a moose? Largest of the deer family. To kill a harmless wild animal for the pure adrenalin rush such power to kill another creature gives to you? Or her explaining why America needs MORE Prudhoe Bays (say BP Oil) to fuel our insatiable and self indulging appetite for fossil fuels! Climate change be damned! After all, her own Todd is a long-time gas guzzling snowmobile racer of some renown!

I recall John F. Kennedy was the junior senator from Massachusetts when elected to the presidency. Yet he steered the US (and the world) through the Cuba Missile crisis. How would Sarah Palin do there? Would Kruschev just have laughed when she called? Several of JFK's top level advisers including the Pentagon generals recommended an immediate bombing of Cuba and an invasion. We had 150,000 men ready to go. JFK held back. He and Kruschev saved the world as we know it!

I recall Lyndon B. Johnson was only a senator - experience wise - before he became (suddenly) the president of the United States. The Vietnam War aside - our participation began in Truman’s time with aid to the French and continued during Eisenhower’s time - LBJ is credited with being No. 2 to FDR.

And then we went to governors. Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton. and last and LEAST, George W. Bush a/k/a Dumbya to his friends.


Note 1. Compare these city populations with Alaska's state population. This means Gov. Palin's level of executive experience should be compared to a first term Mayor of one of these cities about half way through his term.
#18 Memphis, Tennessee, 674,028.
#19 Charlotte, North Carolina, 671,588.
#20 Baltimore, Maryland, 637,455.

Sure they get pot-holes filled. They get the garbage collected. But give them the Black Bag for nuclear retaliation? Can anyone HONESTLY say a first term politico from any of the 3 mentioned cities is READY and EXPERIENCED enough to take over the PRESIDENCY of the United States? To sit a heart-beat away from the Oval Office?

IS Sarah Palin THE VERY BEST AMERICA CAN DO?

Is she more experienced that say, Mitt Romney? Or than North Carolina's Senator Elizabeth Dole? Get real! Gender is not the issue, competence is the issue.

This choice itself calls John McCain's judgment into serious question. Being a self styled maverick - not supported by his votinng record - is one thing, but to be IRRESPONSIBLE with our nation's future is quite another. McCain has blown his own test for the VP he promised us just a week ago.

Q. Is McCain an early Alzheimers case? AND just what is his DISABILITY RATING by the VA based on what?

[edit on 9/2/2008 by donwhite]

Maybe it's voters like me who prove Don's points about the need for less democracy.

I despise and hate what I see in both parties yet I keep leaning towards Republican candidates even though their foreign policy sickens me and their pro-life agenda consists of lip service. In fact when I think about the GOP hatred fills my heart from the all the lies that have misled my thinking.

I think I know why I lean Republican. I honestly think it's because when I first came of age to vote I was what some would probably label a "militant republican". I, a typical evangelical, thought I held a moral high ground. I thought abortion was simply murder in the lightest of terms. I wasn't against gay civil unions but was agaisnt gay marriage. Many of these feelings have been greatly revised within my mind, but I still cling to the Republican party. It's like I automatically feel an aversion to the possibility of voting any other way.

I recently read an article about how our brain rewards us (with hormones) when we defend our beliefs and ideals even though we know they may quite possibly be false. It's literally like a drug addiction to believe and defend something and fight for that no matter the knowledge. Could this be why I still lean Republican?

A good example is Sarah Palin. I truly know when I stop and think about it that her experience is truly slim to none. I realize that she is having many family issues right now, and I believe McCain could have done much better in choosing a prepared VP candidate. However, even though I think those things I find myself desiring to defend her simply because she is a Republican..........even though when I connect all my thoughts I completely despise what the Republican Party is.

Anyone know of any support groups that help with addictions to the Republican Party?

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bugman82]

reply to post by Bugman82

Maybe it's voters like me who prove Don's points about the need for less democracy.

I despise and hate what I see in both parties yet I keep leaning towards Republican candidates even though their foreign policy sickens me and their pro-life agenda consists of lip service. I think I know why I lean Republican. I honestly think it's because when I first came of age to vote I was what some would probably label a "militant republican". I, a typical evangelical, thought I held a moral high ground. I recently read an article about how our brain rewards us (with hormones) when we defend our beliefs and ideals even though we know they may quite possibly be false. It's literally like a drug addiction to believe and defend something and fight for that no matter the knowledge. Could this be why I still lean Republican?

I missed that article Mr Bugman82. But I can absolutely concur in the author’s surmise. As you “feel good” about voting Republican so I also “feel good” about voting Democratic.

Being a non-religious person from a fundamentalist Protestant - Church of Christ - background, I cannot conceive of the anguish that must accompany a “true believer” when he or she hears about the number of abortions. As it would similarly be illegitimate for me to tell a woman in the middle of birthing, "I feel your pain." Over the past decades forty million abortions is an oft-heard number. I do not know how those procedures are counted since insurance does not pay for it. I quit religion long before Roe v. wade. 1973. To me Roe stands on firm legal grounds. I am reinforced in my view by the fact it is still the law of the land, albeit much encumbered with religious-driven tapestry.

I suppose you and I were on the opposite sides of the Terri Schiavo case? That case could have brought on a serious debate over the financial problem facing society, that 80% of all health care expenditures occur in the last 20% of a person’s lifetime. Or, put bluntly, when do we say enough is enough? But instead it got caught up in the mundane squabbling over who got the money, then the equally valueless political boast that I love life more than you love life.

We are dealing with the financial aspect now, but not doing it so well IMO. My simply expressed concern is in the way we deal with IT. The cost-benefit ratio. How we deal with the disproportionate expenditures is determined today almost entirely by the economic status of the individual. I don’t mind dying so much; I just want to die equally! But I digress.

A good example is Sarah Palin. I truly know when I stop and think about it that her experience is truly slim to none. I realize that she is having many family issues right now, and I believe McCain could have done much better in choosing a prepared VP candidate , , even though I think those things I find myself desiring to defend her because she is a Republican . . Anyone know of any support groups that help with addictions to the Republican Party?

No, but you are not alone. Perhaps I felt like you do now when Bill Clinton faced impeachment? No matter what the final charge against him was, it came down to lying about an extra-marital sexual affair. And that could not rise to the level of a successful impeachment. Q. If we had a truth machine, I wonder how many senators would have been left standing to judge Clinton if those guilty of the same offense were excluded? See Note 1.

I do not approve of nor do I recommend either pre marital sex or extra marital sex. I cannot think of anything good to say about either. Yet, I have personally done both. So what do you do? Shrug your shoulders and move on. Try to do better NEXT time. A self-lie equal to the drunk promising to quit tomorrow.

I don’t know how the campaign will turn out next November 4, but I will vote Democratic as I have all my life. You are younger than I Mr B82, so you have a lifetime of hard decisions ahead of you. I am a product of the Great Depression and the New Deal so for me the choices were always easy to make. As even in the case of a stray dog, you never bite the hand that feeds you. Or put more accurately in the post Reagan era, "that FED you." You have not been so fortunate - if that is the right word?


Note 1. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:5. KJV


[edit on 9/2/2008 by donwhite]

Looks like everything I thought I knew, is not that much at all..
We all go threw shifts and phases in this lifetime. Just when you think you have it all figured out, something jumps into your lap and makes you rethink everything you ever once thought.

Obama or McCain. We have come a long ways here guys and many thoughts have been put forth upon the cyber table here.

I cherish each and every thought on here.. But looks like I was totally off base, and totally wrong about most all my thoughts in this thread.

I need to take some time and do some more research and some more time to rethink things over..
Things have changed.. And plans have been changed due to what we know.

But one thing I do know, is this is up in the air right now, and its anyones game.
However I do know what ever person wins this.. Is just another puppet controled by the higher powers that no one sees.

Its always been this way, and nothing will change.

reply to post by zysin5

Obama or McCain. We have come a long ways here guys and many thoughts have been put forth upon the cyber table here. But [it] looks like I was totally off base, and totally wrong about most all my thoughts in this thread. But one thing I do know is this [election] is up in the air right now, and its anyone’s game. However I do know what ever person wins this . . Is just another puppet controlled by the higher powers that no one sees. Its always been this way, and nothing will change.

I cannot disprove your conclusion, Mr zysin5. OTOH, my definition of what you call “ . . the higher powers . . ” I prefer to describe as a convergence of coincidence. The R&Fs have always dominated the P and P-er. Rich and famous and poor and poorer. The rich always allied with the ubiquitous priests and the overlords, the military, have controlled society since Moses wrote the first Five Books of the Torah. The Pentateuch. Well, his name is on the books but we are pretty sure now that Moses, like Saul, David and Solomon, are all fictional beings. Mythological characters. The suff legends are made of.

I always remind my readers how much different the world would be today if the First Book of the Pentateuch had been named “Origins of the Hebrew People” rather than Genesis. We would not be stuck with Original Sin, for one. And the 100s of 1000s of people who were killed by their neighbors in the Name of God for violating the Ten Commandments would have had time to contribute to our culture. But alas it was not to be.

I agree the November 4 election is beginning anew at the Starting Line.

By picking Sarah Palin McCain is playing into Obama hand some what . Aside from the fact that Conservatives tend be against change should McCain fight the war over who can implement change the best he is bound to lose .

reply to post by donwhite


Dam if Don says that he wouldn't be that harsh on the Republican party I must have come down on them like a ton of bricks .
As for me being mild mannered well I suppose the T&C prevents me from stating some of my more blunt opinions not that it is a problem .

that's why language skils matter. Pick and choose your words carefully, and you can get your meaning acreoss. When it comes to Sarah Palin, thre is "more" on the way. It's worth remembering that the MSM has to handle McCain with some care due to his miitary record...but...Governor Palin has no such 'protection.' In the same way htat the GOP has resorted to character attacks, so too will the Dems resort to character attacks on Palin. If they can, they will "question" everyting from her choice in breakfast cereal to the way she walks her dog. Bear in mind that this happens every four years. No candidate is immune.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

. . MSM has to handle McCain with some care due to his military record but Governor Palin has no such 'protection.' In the same way that the GOP has resorted to character attacks, so too will the Dems resort to character attacks on Palin. If they can, they will "question" everything from her choice in breakfast cereal to the way she walks her dog. Bear in mind that this happens every four years. No candidate is immune.

1) And just what is HIS military record? I have not heard much about it. Aside from the 6 years spent in Hanoi Hilton. In fact, I sense there is a story somewhere near his record. His grandfather was an admiral. His father was an admiral. There is no place where nepotism is practiced more blatantly than in the US Navy. John Jr would have been an admiral, too, if he had stayed in the service. “Big John” would have retired as a 2 star Rear Admiral upper half old style, I don’t know what the Navy calls an O8 today.

Instead, around the early 1980s, someone convinced him to get out of the Navy and run for Congress. Sounds like a rerun of Richard Nixon. It is safe to assume “Big John” did not have the money to fund his FIRST election campaign. I’m not sure but I think John and his first wife had child(ren)? If so, then to keep them up would take most of his pay as a Navy officer. There is a story there!

I mentioned “Big John’s” Veterans Administration disability rating. It is important for 2 reasons. First, if it is 100% as I suspect, then the rating smacks of cronyism. In the worst way. He obviously is not totally disabled.

McCain has something wrong with his arms. Whether his restricted range of motion is due to injuries sustained in bailing out of his jet plane or when assaulted by the local civilians before the NVA rescued him, I do not know. I am highly skeptical of claims of “torture” by the inmates at the Hanoi Hilton. I notice none of the men who were confined there lost their teeth. That tells me they had a diet adequate in vitamin C to say the least. No scurvy. It also says no one “knocked out” their teeth. No one of them I have seen on the tube has any visible injuries nor do any ot them show any signs of emotional instability. My conclusion is that the NVA did not mistreat the prisoners. Certainly not as we do at Abu Ghraib and Git-mo. Plus at unnumbered CIA SECRET prisons maintained around the world. Extra legal.

Looking at McCain, if I was giving out disability ratings, I’d give him a 30% to 50% rating. That is based entirely on my observations about his arms. OTOH, if the rating is due in part to emotional disturbances very easily attributable to the long confinement in Hanoi - like his famous short temper - followed by oodles of sailor talk - then I’d want to know that too, because it may put McCain in the same position Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton was in back in 1972 as the VP nominee when poor vetting overlooked his mental problems including electric shock treatment.

There were about 600-650 US airmen held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. I am under the impression about 6-8 of them died there. The NVA said it was due to injuries they sustained before their confinement. I'm inclined to believe the NVA.

2) Well, it is very hard to attack a person’s character if that person is of impeccable character. Already there is an investigation whether Gov. Palin used her office to further a family vendetta against her ex brother in law. Whether he deserved to be fired or not is not the issue. She claims to be a strong ETHICS in public service person. Well, she looks to have failed her first test. ANYTHING involving her sister and her ex husband should have been a red flag to Susan. She should have said, “Conflict of interest. I’m outta this!” But she did not. She seems to have SENT Todd to do the dirty work. Shrewd!

She has already been caught lying about her role in halting the Bridge to Nowhere. And we learned that the state of Alaska kept the $273 million so the long suffering US TAXPAYERS still got screwed. She has been a long time beneficiary of earmarks. In fact, the largest single REVENUE component of the current Alaska budget - $170 million - is EARMARKS she asked for from Congress. Wow!

She is not getting off to a good start. To say the MOST I can about her. I wonder if she will meet any of these allegations head on tonight? Or load us down with old style b******t?

[edit on 9/3/2008 by donwhite]

There's a little more to that bridge thing than you may know. The quote being thrown around comes from the Anchorage Daily News, and it is taken out of context. Palin did say she was in favor of State-wide infrastructure improvements, which included that bridge. In the same news clip, she is quoted as saying that she didn't think it was appropriate for Federal money to pay for that bridge.

It was a big deal here in the State. She stunned a lot of people by saying "no" to the bridge. SEnator Stevens himself took the next jet home to try and work things out. By all accounts, their meeting was stormy. Weeks later, when the final bill was passed on to President Bush for signing, that appropriation was re-labelled. It was no longer for a specifc bridge. It was tagged for general capitol improvements.

Stevens himself was outraged. You don't just REFUSE Congressional moneies. It's just not done. He argued that it would damage his standing in the Senate. As you might expect, Palin and Stevens don't talk much, any more.

That money was in fact used for a long list of raod projects. Some of which were concluded here in Anchorage, just this very summer. You're not wrong to point out that Governor Palin has sent our Congressional delegation a list of specfic things she wanted. Almost all are roads. some are port upgrades. All of this is regarded as "necessary" to support the gas line construction, which we expect to start in four years.

When it comes to Trooper Gate, I would efy any man or woman to ignore a family member in distress. It's worth noting that Governor Palin did give her blessing to an independent investiation of the matter. For many of you, this is "new." For those of us who live here in Alaska, this is year old stuff. Nobody likes a wife beater.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the mainstream media is having such a hard time with Sarah Palin. I have the impression that they just don't know what to make of her. This is a little weird to me, since Obama himself caused them such a stir. You'd think they were ready for "different," but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Alaska's leaders have to contend with many policy issues which can seems strange to the outsider. There's a lot of ammo there, and I'm wondering why they don't use it. then again, the Republicans have had many chances to go after Obama on policy, but they haven't done it. Instead, they waste their time on purile character attacks.

I agree that character matters...but...I worry more about a politician's intended goals than I do about their home life. Electing people that we like because we like them is dangerous. We can like somebody who intends to do things policy-wise that are bad for the nation. That's MY beef with Obama. I worry more about his policies than I do about the man himself.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
that's why language skills matter. Pick and choose your words carefully, and you can get your meaning across.

That is why I say that because Obama can talk and talk well he can persuade and if you can persuade, you can govern.

The most interesting thing about McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate is this:

He chose a relatively inexperienced state politician who happens to be very pretty. And that is I think, the reason he chose her was her looks... young, pretty and feminine. More proof as if there isn't enough already that McCain just does not get it no matter what it is... in this case the appeal to women voters.

The reason I say this is that if he wanted to chose a conservative woman VP there are plenty out there with far more knowledge than Ms. Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson comes immediately to mind for one. I disagree with her on just about everything but that she has considerable experience is undeniable.
Olympia Snowe of Maine is another, though she is far more moderate than the right wing extremists who have hijacked the Republican party like... and then there is Elizabeth Dole.

Each of those three choices would say to women voters that McCain was taking them far more seriously than the Palin pick which is little more than a pretty face.... McCain's trophy bride as it were.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Despite the ATS T&C ban on short posts, let me say this: 100%!

Or in the vernacular Right On! Or is is now, COOL?

I think you're going to find that Sarah Palin is more than just a pretty face. Her speech at last night's convention demonstated that. With all due respect to the women that Grover mentioned, none are quite as skilled in oratory.

If I had to bet the ranch, I'd have to say that MCain was thinking in terms of packaging more than anything else. Palin is good looking, and she can speak well. She can speak competently to the issue of resource development, which has become one of MCain's two most important party platform plants.

Let's not kid ourselves. It has now become fashionable to have women on the ticket. Political correctness demands it, and so do many voters. If Barack Obama could've done it, he woudlhave. His best female pick wouldhave overshadowed him, so he didn't go that way. Interestingly enough, it may yet happen that John McCain really is overshadowed by Sarah Palin.

Today's politician has to be telegenic, and highly skilled in advanced oratory. They have to be capable of putting on a very good show. That's going to mean that a lot of homely wonks are left out. It's going to mean that some of our best and brightest don't get to serve.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I think you're going to find that Sarah Palin is more than just a pretty face. Her speech at last night's convention demonstated that. With all due respect to the women that Grover mentioned, none are quite as skilled in oratory.

Today's politician has to be telegenic, and highly skilled in advanced oratory. They have to be capable of putting on a very good show. That's going to mean that a lot of homely wonks are left out. It's going to mean that some of our best and brightest don't get to serve.

And kudos to you, J/O, for such insightful commentary. You have removed the element of personal like or dislike of Mrs. Palin. You have put into a second tier her debatable performance in the TWO executive posts she has held. The mayor's job is a stretch. The picture of City Hall I saw makes it look to be in one corner of a laundromat. Maybe we should say she has held 1 and one-half executive jobs? And it sounds a lot like the governorship of Alaska could be a part-time job.

Please do not take personal affront, but it is hard for me to equate running Alaska with more than running say, Jacksonville. We have 900 square miles and 775,000 people. We had 110 homicides last year! We had 49 by July 1 this year. The newspaper will not keep a running tally lest they scare away the tourist and their dollars. 12 people were killed by the police. Since the definition of a homicide is the unlawful taking of a human life, I asked but got no reply, do they include police killings in the total, assuming that a police killing is legal and therefore, not a homicide?

But all that is irrelevant. Hiring, firing, who cares. The bridge, no bridge, the earmarks, I'm against 'em but I got $170 million this year. It's all none of your business. "It's not what I did, it's what I say I did." As you remind, J/O, it’s her tv persona that will count on November 4. That's Real Politick.

Ignoring for now her Assembly of God preachers linking GOD, Islam and the Iraq War, and the worrisome end time theology they so uninhibitedly embrace, the issue for political debate is how can such people who actually believe that ever reach a peace between the Arabs and Israelis thinking it is useless? (Sentence too long) The A of G types don’t think it is worth the effort, what with the SOON return of Jesus! On a cloud. At the sound of trumpets. Jesus said even HE, the Son and one of the Trinity, did not know the time, but GOD the Father only! Reference Tim LeHaye 40+ million copies of the "Left Behind" series. Fiction treated as factual.

That theology is what underlies Bush43 ignoring the MOST crucial single issue in the Middle East. Jesus will be coming on a Cloud at any moment! That is A of G gospel!

Religious tolerance is generally a good thing. Unfortunately it is very often not reciprocated by those who need it most. You will find NO tolerance in the A of G meetings towards Mormons or the Muslims.

So it’s all a race to tv ratings. Who is the next president and the next vice president. I cannot prove you wrong, though I wish I could.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by donwhite]

I would say that the governorship of Alaska is a lot more complicated than the mainstream media wants to make it sound. Alaska is not Pettycoat Junction, and Juneau is not Mr. Drucker's general store. Our population is small, but our GDP rivals any otehr State. Laws relating to resoruces make up one third of our State's cofification. That's more than you'll find in any other State in our Union.

Becasue our State constitution is so specficaly geared toward resource development, management, and exploitation, our Governors are tasked with issues relating to foriegn relations, overseas trade, and National Interst Lands. No other State in the Union has to deal with these things to the same extent.

I can prove what I say by pointing out just two things.

1. The Federal Government controls more land inside our State than it does in any other THREE States, combined. That's a management headache that no other governor has to contend with.

2. 65% of our official State Overhead is eaten up by Federal regs that apply only to Alaska, and to no other State in the Union. This includes speciality limitation on foriegn trade which no otehr State leader has to deal with.

No matter who our governor is, they must wear many hats. Republican or Democrat, they have an adversarial relationship with Washington that exhiss for no otehr governor. Our last Democratic governor was Tony Knowles, and he spent quite a bit of his time in litigation with Uncle Sam. Alaska fights for State's Rights in a way that nobody else does.

The job is known to be so demanding that a few of our one term governors never took annual leave. The never had time. The average Alaskan views the job as being rather thankless. Even so, we get lucky from time to time and somebody shows up to do the job--and--they do it well.

It will be most entertaining reading back over this thread after McCain's inauguration in January 2009. I am mostly just staying out of the conversation here, having a look at it every few days. Now that the conventions are over, the real political wars begin.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

1. The Federal Government controls more land inside our State than it does in any other THREE States, combined. That's a management headache that no other governor has to contend with.

Well, the United State of America OWNS that land. Bought lock stock and barrel from the Tsar of Russia in 1867 for $7 million cash. You own it, you control it. It is the overall responsibility of the Department of Interior to manage all our Federal land in the best interest of all our citizens.

2. 65% of our official State Overhead is eaten up by Federal regs that apply only to Alaska, and to no other State in the Union. This includes speciality limitation on foriegn trade which no otehr State leader has to deal with.

I'm not sure what you refer to Mr J/O. 65%? Are you referring to the unfunded mandates Congress likes to put on the states? Don't that forget BEFORE Reagan the US Treasury regularly sent out BLOCK grants to the states. But under the "Get the Government Off our Back" mantra, that has declined. If the Dems win it all November 4, I think things will get better for the states.

As for limitations on foreign trade, I'm not familiar with that. At first blush I do not see why there would be any interference from W-DC. Unless someone is trying to sell the store.

No matter who our governor is, they must wear many hats. Republican or Democrat, they have an adversarial relationship with Washington that exists for no otehr governor. Our last Democratic governor was Tony Knowles, and he spent quite a bit of his time in litigation with Uncle Sam. Alaska fights for State's Rights in a way that nobody else does.

If state's rights means control of oil drilling, leasing, trans-shipping and etc., then you are right. The US could not trust Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, California, or Florida to take proper care of the NATIONAL interest. It's not logical. It's not Federal. ONLY the Federal government can take care of ALl the people's interest.

BUT SEE THIS

I would say that the governorship of Alaska is a lot more complicated than the mainstream media wants to make it sound. Alaska is not Pettycoat Junction, and Juneau is not Mr. Drucker's general store. Our population is small, but our GDP rivals any other State. Laws relating to resources make up one third of our State's codification. That's more than you'll find in any other State in our Union.

Because our State constitution is so specifically geared toward resource development, management, and exploitation, our Governors are tasked with issues relating to foreign relations, overseas trade, and National Interest Lands. No other State in the Union has to deal with these things to the same extent.

You are right about which was more important to the Writers of the Constitutoin if you base that on word count. On the provisoin for Education, 142 rords; for Health, 13 rords; and for Welfare, 9 words.

For Natural Resources, 1110 words.
(My estimate. I counted 3 lines, averaged the number then multiplied by the number of lines)


Alaska Con. Article 1.8. “. . The grand jury shall consist of at least twelve citizens, a majority of whom concurring may return an indictment. The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.”

COMMENT. Originally grand juries had 16 members. Grand being the French for Large. As opposed to trial or petit juries. Petit being French for small. 12 members. Norman Conquest, 1066. A vote of 12 was needed to indict. It is a diminution of INDIVIDUAL rights (protections) to permit only 7 out of 12 votes required for indictment. This favors the state or prosecution. (KY requires 9 votes to indict for example).

Article 1.12. “Criminal administration shall be based upon the following: the need for protecting the public, community condemnation of the offender, the rights of victims of crimes, restitution from the offender, and the principle of reformation.”

They left out REMORSE! The entire notion of criminal law and criminal justice is to vindicate the victim, to punish the wrong-doer and to protect the community. From the COMMON LAW.

Now it is codified in the Alaska Constitution. Redundant, but worse, it is adding countervailing obligations to the earlier restraints on the state meant to protect individuals from government abuse. An example of TOO much democracy. The concept of a REPUBLIC is diminished. This is pandering to the LOUD MOUTHS in our society. I don’t like it, as you may have surmised.

Section 1.15. “No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.” But see the corresponding limitation in the US Con. Art. 3, Sec. 3, Cl. 2: “ . . or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

I ask, why did Alaska’s constitutional writers decide to change this? As I see it, Alaska will allow a wrong-doer to keep the fruits of his wrong doing. Recall Michael Milken? He “stole” over $1.2 billion. (His brother David stole about $600 million). He accepted 6 years in the pen plus a fine of $800 million making that the largest fine ever imposed in the US of A.

After 2 years in the pen, the Federal District Court judge let him out. David was never incarcerated, part of Michael’s deal. It is very hard in America to keep a man with $400 million inside a jail.

As I read the Alaska Con, the fine might not have been imposed as amounting to a “forfeiture of estate.” Nothing happens by accident. Leaving things OUT is as bad as putting things IN.

Article 1.19. “ . . The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied . . “

America is awash with guns, mainly hand guns. 30,000 people a year die of gunshot. Almost all by handguns. Without the readily available and cheap hand gun, probably 75% of those casualties would not have happened. I can’t prove a negative but this is what I believe.

About 5,000 of the 30,000 deaths are self-inflicted. Even that number would be drastically reduced without the ubiquitous handgun. IMO. It is neigh on to impossible to beat yourself to death with a baseball bat. But my point is this: Largely due to the National Rifle Association and its deplorable if not outright illegal lobbying tactics, America has 280 million guns owned by 80 million people. (Numbers are from 2000). I hate the NRA as much as I hate Rupert Murdoch. Both are destroyers of a civil society.

I know more people die in car crashes each year so NO, I am not about to BAN cars. Which brings me the th crux of my position: LETHALITY. Of all people injured by gunshot, about 28% die. Of all people injured in auto accidents, about 1.3% die. In ALL accidents requiring medical attention, the fatality number drops to less that 1/10th of 1%. All numbers are from the CDC website.

So what was meant by the writers who said “ . . [to] bear arms?” how does one BEAR arms? Is “bear” merely a synonym for “carry” arms. Or does in imply (at least historically) to have a purpose to be armed? If “bear” means to “carry” but without Constitutional limits, indeed, the Constitution says such a capability SHALL NOT BE LIMITED. On what grounds then would a 14 year old be denied admission into his public school merely because he had a loaded Glock 9 mm in his pocket? Of what use are HOLLOW rights?

Section 1.22 - Right of Privacy. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section. [Approved August 22, 1972]

I find this very interesting. This same “right of privacy” was found in the Roe v. Wade case that de-criminalized abortions. 1973. Most if not all the opponents to Roe belittle the “right of privacy” the justices “found” in the US Con. The Court in Roe was correct of course, as is Alaska. The Roe court defined the “right of privacy” to mean NO governmental interference with a person “without compelling reasons.”

Section 1.23 - Resident Preference.
This constitution does not prohibit the State from granting preferences, on the basis of Alaska residence, to residents of the State over nonresidents to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Which I say is NO preference allowed. But it is definitely a “feel good” clause.

Here is the citizenship DECIDER in the US Con.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I assume this relates to the division of oil royalties to residents. I don’t know if that issue was ever litigated to the US Supreme Court.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POST

Section 1.24 - Rights of Crime Victims.
Crime victims, as defined by law, shall have the following rights as provided by law:
1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused through the imposition of appropriate bail or conditions of release by the court;
2) the right to confer with the prosecution;
3) the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness during all phases of the criminal and juvenile justice process;
4) the right to timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the accused;
5) the right to obtain information about and be allowed to be present at all criminal or juvenile proceedings where the accused has the right to be present;
6) the right to be allowed to be heard, upon request, at sentencing, before or after conviction or juvenile adjudication, and at any proceeding where the accused's release from custody is considered;
7) the right to restitution from the accused;
8) and the right to be informed, upon request, of the accused's escape or release from custody before or after conviction or juvenile adjudication.”

Pander mongers here we come! They left out Crime Victims Anonymous!
1) Always present. 2) Prosecutions cannot go forward without the victim. 3) is common courtesy now a human right? 4) well, the accused is guaranteed a speedy trial so is this redundant? OR is it more likely to be employed mischievously when an accused asks for a delay in the trial? If so, there is a real danger of compromising the accused persons right to [effective] counsel
5) Again, this is much like 2) above. 6) This is one I HATE. And the bifurcated trials that go with it. Along with the NRA and Rupert Murdoch. This one is for whiners as Senator Gramm put it.

Surely some judge sensitive to justice will rule this as OUTLAW and not a proper or fit subject for a Constitution. This contributes to the MELODRAMA we call criminal trials. 3 years of law school followed b 4 years of acting school! This is symptomatic of a very discouraging trend in trial practice. The louder you scream the longer he stays in jail. Not a good system. 7) I don’t like this much either except in the case of RICH guys. Th is provision will adversely effect 99% of convicted persons. It just heaps one more burden on an already overburdened offender. BUT the victim MUST NOT profit from the crime. This has the DOWN side potential of tending to entice victims to SHADE the story in order to gain revenge or more money. An inducement to LIE. 8) I see no harm here, except to the taxpayers. Every burden has a cost associated with it. Failure in the system will give rise to law suits and big judgments. Or How to Profit From Crime!

Section 1.25 - Marriage.
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

We can’t just leave well enough alone. We keep mixing our religion with our laws. You’d think we’d learn sometime. You’d hope someone somewhere really believes in the separation of church and state. RWRWs - right wing religious wackos - surely do not.

Article 2. Section 2.7 - Salary and Expenses.
Legislators shall receive annual salaries. They may receive a per diem allowance for expenses while in session and are entitled to travel expenses going to and from sessions. Presiding officers may receive additional compensation.

I do not like the provision here - or anywhere - to pay presiding officer more money. “Presiding officers may receive additional compensation.” Every member should receive the same level of compensation. If he or she wants to take on extra duties, then that is their choice to make. Paying them MORE money will not make them BETTER at performing their jobs. TOO much in our society is measured by MONEY. We need to get away from that.

Section 2.15 - Veto.
The governor may veto bills passed by the legislature. He may, by veto, strike or reduce items in appropriation bills. He shall return any vetoed bill, with a statement of his objections, to the house of origin.

I don’t like the “Line Item Veto” in any state. It gives the already overpowering governor even more power over the legislature. That in turn puts the legislative process under the negative control of a small minority. In the case of appropriations bills which require 3/4ths majority to override, 16 members can block the majority. In all other bills requiring 2/3rds to override, 21 members can block the majority. This in turn enhances the power of the governor.

Section 2.20 - Impeachment.
All civil officers of the State are subject to impeachment by the legislature.

Fourteen senators can bring impeachment charges. It does require 27 votes of the House to convict. Reversing the US Con procedure.

Article 3. Section 3.3 - Election.
The governor shall be chosen by the qualified voters of the State at a general election. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be governor.

I don’t like the plurality provision. I’d prefer a 50% +1 requirement to be elected which might entail a second run-off election. A real crook - convicted but died before reporting to prison - got in when he had the highest number in a 7 way race. It is very unlikely he would have won the run-off but we don’t know. KY uses plurality.

Section 3.19 - Military Authority.
The governor is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the State.

This must be out of the NRA Playbook? I mean, “armed forces” of Alaska? Who’s kidding who? Why not call them “militia’ if you’re into history, or National Guard if you’re into contemporary? But to call them “armed forces” implies more than Alaska can deliver.

Section 3.21 - Executive Clemency.
A parole system shall be provided by law.

Another thing I HATE. Parole boards. The notion of parole is ancient. It basically meant a person was freed from captivity on certain promises of the person. Today it have evolved into a system where a board - usually political hacks - are convened who are supposed to acquaint themselves with the facts of the crime and the impassioned person behavior since incarceration. Assuming a fair hearing, the person should be related if he has met the legal requirements.

Nowadays, we allow the descendants of the victim to come to the board. We don’t expect them to be character witnesses for the prisoner. How much personal venom they still hold towards the perpetrator is really their problem but now we are making it ours. If a witness has nothing to add to the case, then they should not be allowed to MUDDY the water, or to CLOUD the issues. Then the Parole Board exercises voodoo and decides who gets early release and who does not. The possibility of parole was expected to cause prisoners to reform their behavior. But when any highly desired goal is denied for unstated reason, or for no reason at all, then the effect is just the opposite.

In lieu of playing as if those on the Board are endowed with some special power of prescience - the ability to see the future - I suggest the following system for early release: first offenders, non violent crime, 3 days credit for 1 day well served; second offenders or first but violent not lethal offenders, 2 days credit for each day well served; third offenders or any where death was the consequence of their actions, day for day, that is, release after 50% of sentence is served. Third time offenders often get 20 year minimum sentences. 4th and subsequent offenders can get life without parole until serving 25 years. Everyone ought to be eligible for parole even if far away. Of course, no thoughtful and humane person can support the death penalty so I have given that no consideration. As an old person, I also advocate what I call the Geriatric Release. Any person who has served 10 years with good behavior, would at age 65, have his release date set at the 50% of his life expectancy point.

Section 3.22 - Executive Branch.
All executive and administrative offices . . and their respective functions, powers, and duties shall be allocated by law . . Regulatory . . agencies may be established by law and need not be allocated within a principal department.

Yup! Here is the beginning of the R&Fs take-over of the important functions of the state.

Section 3.23 - Reorganization.
The governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration. Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders . . “

More insulation and insolation for the regulators.

Section 3.25 - Department Heads.
“The head of each principal department shall be a single executive . . He shall be appointed by the governor . . and shall serve at the pleasure of the governor . . “

I would say the governor can fire the safety director without cause. OTOH, good management practices require the governor not to be PETTY or PICAYUNE. Firing arbitrarily or over petty grievances disrupts the entire executive department. Bad policy.
To fire for personal reasons is an entirely different matter. That may be a crime. It surely is not exemplary conduct. It calls into question the judgment of any governor - or other executive - who mixes his or her personal life with the official discharge of his sworn duties. But see this section from Article 12. Section 12.6 - Merit System. The legislature shall establish a system under which the merit principle will govern the employment of persons by the State. Does this cover the head of a department?

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

[edit on 9/5/2008 by donwhite]

CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POST

Article 5. Section 5.1 - Qualified Voters.
Every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age, who meets registration residency requirements which may be prescribed by law, and who is qualified to vote under this article, may vote in any state or local election. A voter shall have been, immediately preceding the election, a thirty day resident of the election district in which he seeks to vote, except that for purposes of voting for President and Vice President of the United States other residency requirements may be prescribed by law. Additional voting qualifications may be prescribed by law for bond issue elections of political subdivisions.

OVER-LONG. 101 words by count. A constitution is to be short sweet and to the point. When you see anything that takes a lot more word to implement that are needed, then there is a chance hanky–panky is afoot!

Suggestion: Every person 18 years of age or over, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alaska the 30 days next preceding the election, is eligible to vote subject to other poisons herein. (35 words).

This provision is unduly complicated by reference to but not mentioned by name, the choosing of electors for president and vice president which are regulated by Federal law, and hinting at requiring ownership of property before eligibility to vote on bonds, are problematic. Surplusage. Let’s not create unnecessary classes of voters. We all pay taxes and that should be the end of it.

Section 12.4 - Disqualification for Disloyalty.
No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution.

I guess this is what the anti-Todd Palin people have in mind. I don’t like this provision. It is unnecessary. It is too much reminiscent of the Anti Sedition laws so popular in the US in the last decade of the 18th century. Recall that Thomas Jefferson pardoned ALL those convicted under the 3 Alien and Sedition Acts. Recall the Sacco Vanzetti misadventure around 1910-1920s. See Foot Note below.


Foot Note. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian-born American laborers and anarchists, who were tried, convicted and executed on August 23, 1927 in Massachusetts for the 1920 armed robbery and murder of two pay-clerks in South Braintree, Massachusetts. Their controversial trial attracted enormous international attention, with critics accusing the prosecution and presiding Judge Webster Thayer of improper conduct, and of allowing anti-Italian, anti-immigrant, and anti-anarchist sentiment to prejudice the jury. Prominent Americans such as Felix Frankfurter and Upton Sinclair publicly sided with citizen-led Sacco and Vanzetti committees in an ultimately unsuccessful opposition to the verdict. en.wikipedia.org...


It is my opinion the Alaska Constitution is at least as good as any other I have read. I would have written some parts of it differently but then, the whole effort was to get a paper the majority of Alaskans would approve. And not just a 50% +1 Tom DeLay or Bush43 Texas style majority. Forty-nine point nine Nay counts for naught to those 1 mental giants. More like 75/25 or 80/20 is much to be preferred.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by donwhite]

With all due respect, I think we need another thread if you want to debate the merits of a State Constitution. That should hold true for ANY State Constitution.

In an effort to stay on topic, I'd like to point out just one thing. In the last 24 hours, Governor Palin's inner circle has begun to stonewall the Wuten investigation. As much as I like Sarah Palin, that turn of events tells me that she's guilty of the charge that our plucky little State A.G. is looking in to.

Could she be innocent? Yes. If so, why suddenly become so uncooperative? I know she can hold the wolves at bay until November, but I as a citizen am dissappointed. Is The Avenger right? Can McCain win? Yes. I think it's unlikely, but the competition's dynamic has changed just enough to give him a real shot at victory.