Overlooked in the dash for the White House is the most important thing and that is whoever wins the election has one mandate: To save us and by saving us they will save our nation.
We all have hopes and dreams and prayers of a better tomorrow but at the moment we need drastic intervention in the form of some surgery to cut out the cancerous tumor that has been growing for almost eight years. Removing the current occupant from our House will not remove the roots of this monstrous growth. It has to be cut out, and the surgeon we select to do that in November needs to be a specialist, not a general practitioner.
Among the three candidates we must choose from, we must look at the results of their individual character and how they have dealt with these problems in their past. It does not matter if that experience is "political"; as we can see, a political party created candidate Bush, whose successes were few and the injury to our nation was beyond belief. And drastic solutions will be needed for a successful recovery.
With the number of lawyers, many experienced in prosecution, in our legislative branch of government, you can see the trend is toward punishment and guilt, not preservation and lending a helping hand. So whoever is elected in November, these are the consultants the winner must work with to resuscitate the United States by resuscitating its Constitution. The president elect will have the responsibility to reconnect the flow of taxpayer funds back to the states and the nation they are a part of, to rebuild a rotting infrastructure and provide a healthy future for all citizens with jobs that support family needs, family health care and provide affordable energy for the whole nation.
This winner must also be able to staunch the flow of our citizens blood now being lost for a dubious cause created by the current leader who announced that he was "tired of swatting [al Qaida] flies and thus became the leader in power when those al Qaida "flies" effectively hit two major targets - one the financial district of New York City and the seat of our military power in our nation’s capitol, for which no person in authority was ever held responsible for.
Lack of leadership, lack of sound judgment, lack of experience all led to that successful 9/11 attack. And in spite of punitive programs designed to keep out terrorists, only the citizens of this nation received the punishment in the form of suspension of our Constitutional Rights by unconstitutional means. And what we need to begin to regain our vitality is someone with leadership, sound judgment and experience - not political - but in disaster recovery.
How can we judge from these three candidates who can best save our nation? First, we must discard political rhetoric and political game strategy and focus on quite different qualities. Any student of history will know that it is not always those who are the best party candidates that become the best leaders. Need we look any further than the current Republican administration for proof that political parties care more about the win than the person they select.
One of our nation’s great leaders, Martin Luther King, once said that he dreamed of a day where his children "would not be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Many things Martin Luther King spoke of were universal ideals. During the past presidential administration, We, the People, have been consistently judged not by our character but by the patriotic standards of the Bush administration. And, as Dr. King also told us,
There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society, with a large segment of people in that society, who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that they have nothing to lose. People who have a stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don't have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it.
We, the People, entered that phase of existence in 2000 when large segments of our society, many the same segment that Dr. King fought to free during the Civil Rights movement, began to feel that we had no stake in what was being created in our name. Our elections were filled with fraud and voter disenfranchisement was rampant. For almost a decade we fought a loosing battle to protect our society, to take back what was being lost in a slow shrinking of our civil liberties. We saw our cities and our soldiers die while our leaders continued to sing and dance in their own little universe. And we wondered why we could not stop them.
If, IF, we can not begin to see improvement soon, we will have no stake in our society and then, will we unconsciously want to destroy it?
Tenacity, guts and the ability to take criticism
There is no glory for this next president. There is no possibility that all the problems can be solved within two terms and we’ll all end up living happily ever after in 2012 like a television program. We’ll be lucky if we can get habeas corpus restored and keep immunity from being given to government telecom spies; let alone restore the checks and balances of power ratified by our Constitution.
We’ll be more than lucky if the chosen winner in November will be able to convince a hostile Congress to provide some relief from medical care burdens; or restore better paying jobs and bring back outsourced professional jobs to our country, or our troops out of Iraq. Do we dare hope for more?
While we have been engrossed in this political party game of one-upmanship, the present administration continues to hit us again and again and no one seems to notice. Since this presidential race to the White House began, we have witnessed the Bush administration getting its way about Iraq; the replacement for Attorney General Gonzales continuing to carry on in his footsteps, and the most protected segment of our economy, "business", continuing to "downsize" and "outsource" while being excused from paying taxes on their huge profits.
We have seen an "entitlement" program to help sick children go down in defeat in a Democratic controlled House not once, but twice. We have seen gas prices soaring far beyond the budget of ordinary workers and which is now threatening to stop our whole commerce system we rely on to move our goods around the country. We have seen a mortgage crisis that not only threatens our country’s solvency but is having a ripple effect throughout the industrialized nations. And we have seen a government so blind to the increasing threat of global warming that not even the destruction of an entire historical city from the record setting 2005 hurricane season made an impact.
And these are just a few of the problems the new president elect will face January 21, 2009. There won’t be time to contemplate hopes and dreams, no time to sort out plans of action or peruse other presidents’ administrations for ideas. Take the administration of George W. Bush, a lackadaisical governor with no real experience in negotiations or diplomacy, or strategic thinking. He dawdled for the first four years of his administration in spite of inheriting a peaceful, stable economy that didn’t require him to be "ready on day one" but which quickly degenerated into requiring some very difficult leadership decisions during the first few months of his first term.
As President Clinton was bowing out and Decider Bush was moving in, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole that occurred in Yeman on October 12, 2000 was wrapping up the investigation which would prove that al Qaida operatives had been responsible. According to the National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice of the new administration, "We knew that there was speculation that the [October 12] 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda... We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear." According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he
made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.' The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.
Thus began the baptism of fire of the Bush administration in a world about to ratchet up the stakes of not being "ready on day one". The decision to ignore al Qaida and concentrate on Iraq seem to produce a tandem decision to test the mettle of the new U. S. leadership. The Chinese threatened to shoot down an American military aircraft, forced it to land at a Chinese military airport on Hainan Island March 31, 2001 - 71 days from the day the presidential oath of office was administered.
While Mr. Bush was mulling over his options regarding a hostile seizure of a Naval aircraft, what to do about 24 U.S. military hostages and Chinese threats; Japan and Tawain were hyperventilating over the fact that they, too, were in jeopardy from the Chinese acquisition of the military plane that contained the Link-11 communication also employed by them and the Japanese Defense Agency ordered an immediate evaluation of the Japanese risk from the Chinese obtaining this system and both countries began fighter escort flights for their monitoring and surveillance aircraft.
Bush, on the other hand, met the terms and conditions of the Chinese and reapproved their "favored nation status" as if the possibility of war in Asia has slipped past the commander in chief unnoticed while he continued to contemplate an invasion of Iraq.
Quite the contrast to the "take no prisoners" stand he took with Iraq.
And Bush was deciding on a "new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda" and planning to invade Iraq, when the worst oops of his administration occurred and joined the Day of Infamy in our history as 9/11. This September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that gave hope to every al Qaida terrorist crippled the heart of our largest city and home of the United Nations, halted one of our major transportation systems, and invaded the stronghold of our military industrial complex.
But no one was ever held accountable for the hundreds of government agencies’ mistakes that had to be coordinated to bring about this disastrous attack. And while the leader of al Qaida - those terrorists that Mr. Bush decided he was tired of swatting in March 2001 - was immortalizing his triumph on video tape our commander in chief made the decision to pursue Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Lauden. How many lives would have been saved if we had a leader who had been ready on Day One.
But, we are promised, this time we’ll get it right. The mantra is that the candidates will be ready on "Day One" but is that too late? The nation they will be leading is not the one inherited by George W. Bush. They will need to hit the ground running because they will be launched into the middle of affairs that are already dire and which one do you think can do that?
A Look At the Candidates Without the Rose Colored Glasses
Let’s face it, an FDR or a decisive Harry Truman willing to take the heat for unpopular decisions or a JFK embarking on new frontiers doesn’t happen every election cycle. Sometimes the crop is mediocre and sometimes we get a Clinton who comes from the minor leagues to hit a home run. But we voters don’t get to pick and choose and we certainly don’t get to build an issue oriented candidate from scratch.
So, let’s pretend that we’re from another planet and are observing an election process we know nothing about; not much of a leap considering the convoluted rules imposed by the two ruling political parties in choosing a political candidate.
Could an outsider really understand how we chose our leaders? First, our Constitution says
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Straightforward, eh? No political party affiliation necessary, no "landed gentry" or wealth requirements. Just 35 years old and a resident in the U. S. for 14 years. Even that nasty "man" qualification was eradicated in Amendment 19, leaving a wide open field for any citizen to become president -- as long as you have enough money to buy your way into the nomination.
That money is what un-levels the playing field. That money leaves out large segments of potential leaders and focuses not on experience, honor or integrity but on who can raise the most money. Our present presidential campaign has been framed around that source of money. The media, pundits and commentators dwell on it, massage the totals and then draw conclusions as to who is "ahead" by number of contributors.
So let’s analyze "the money". The only three candidates still viable are Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (listed alphabetically for those who see slights where none exist) and Republican Senator John McCain. In terms of money raised, Senator McCain is dead last in this analysis of January, 2008, showing totals raised as $53,717,085. Senator Clinton is second with a total of $134,536,488 and Senator Obama has raised $138,231,595. Now, if we base it on capacity to raise money, Obama is the winner.
But with a Constitution where money isn’t mentioned as a requirement for becoming a presidential candidate, and even a limited income tax upon any citizen wasn’t ratified until 137 years later, it certainly shouldn’t be a factor in any election.
Although Senator Obama is so new to the Senate that his financial disclosure forms have yet to be included in the same data base site that lists both Senator Clinton's and Senator McCain's net worth. We do know that Senator Obama, with the assistance of his friend Tony Rezko, lives in a 1.6 million dollar mansion located in his adopted state of Chicago and reported a hefty income of almost a million dollars in 2006. We all know that Senator Obama worked for two New York companies, was a Community Service director, took time off to get a law degree before beginning practice with a Chicago law firm, and lectured at another law school before joining the Chicago state senate. None of these jobs paid big bucks so where did his fortune come from? The books, you say?
Then why would the fact that his chief rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, also made her wealth from books be considered a negative? It is common knowledge that President Clinton entered the White House as one of the poorest presidents since Harry Truman, that they had no big mansion "summer White House" but relied on Camp Davis or friends for those few vacation getaways. It was a very public fact and that their legal expenses from the 8 year Starr investigation had left them deeply in debt and their book deals and a $200,000 pension from being president was about the sum of their assets. On the 2006 Senate ranking database, Senator Clinton’s net worth is ranked between $10,360,009 and $51,021,998.
The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, with a long Senate career (1986) and a career in the United States Navy, his background is totally different from his two rivals. He spent his youth in VietNam, first as a Navy pilot from 1965-68 and then as a prisoner of war until 1972. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and was elected a Senator in 1986. Another career path not destined to bring great wealth although the database ranks his net worth between $27,817,187 and $45,045.011. No best selling books on his resume but, like Kerry, it is said he married into wealth.
So it is more than obvious to the most obtuse viewer that the three candidates now wheedling for our vote are not among the Senate poor any longer. But how far have these now wealthy candidates strayed from their middle class roots? Of these three candidate who have devoted much of their careers to work among the disenfranchised of this nation (yes, statistics show that mostly poor and uneducated youth found their way to Viet Nam) has retained that empathetic quality now that they are no longer one of us.
It is interesting that none of the three candidates has accepted federal funding and the rules and limitations doing so requires them to follow. They are relying on donors or, in the not unique case of Hillary Clinton, their own funds. So who are these donors? To sort that out takes more manpower and hours than I, or most voters, have at our disposal and a complete compilation won’t be available until long after the election is completed; however, among the top 20 donors of the three candidates listed here, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have 10 in common, Senator McCain has 6.
Among those in common are investment firms Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, and such diverse groups as University of California and Goldman Sachs. Senator Clinton, understandably received a $283,142 contribution from Emily’s List,"an organization dedicated to the nation's largest grassroots political network and financial resource for women candidates!" Whatever is considered a "lobbyist", there is not a list of them for voters to peruse. Although I’m sure you could add Emily’s List or any of the other top contributors to that category with more research.
So there’s the money, at least as much as ordinary citizens can follow. It seems to determine which candidate's run and who ends up with the nomination because those without The Money seem to be unable to get a campaign off the ground and we end up with a bunch of rich men (Hillary is a first) seeking out other rich men to give them more money. And it certainly doesn’t seem to have much to do with limiting The Money either, the parties seem to just go around or through money restrictions.
Building an "Issues" Candidate
Since money is an issue -- a big issue -- how can we, the voter, decide who would best fulfill our needs of leadership and support and enforce our choices. We tend to vote the "issues", sometimes those issues are the ones our leadership tells us are important, such as "safe from terrorism" and sometimes the real issues are hidden or scoffed at, such as our realistic fear of becoming unemployed and unable to support our families on what passes for a living wage in an ever shrinking service industry economy.
There is much irony in the statistic that one of the fastest growing industries producing the most secure employment now is the health care industry that so many of us can no longer afford to patronize; the very same industry that has caused half of all bankruptcies pre-subprime crisis.
There is a total disconnect between the reality of the huge government budget deficit and the growing deficit of the American taxpayer’s budget. Unlike the U. S. Treasury We, the Taxpayers, can not simply print more money or change the prime rate. And since most of our elected leaders are lawyers why is there such a deficit among them as to cause and effect?
Most of these issues making their way to an overcrowded pile at the top have been a problem for a long time. From the ancient dikes of New Orleans to the full blown energy crisis, these same problems existed way back to Nixon in the 1970s. If one administration had made just one of them a priority, our nation would not have such an overwhelming plethora of crises that sheer inertia prevents any one crisis from receiving the attention it needs.
But at the moment, the political election campaign is bogged down, once more, with name calling and virtuous photo op sound bites worthy of GWB’s finest. I hate to be the one pointing out the inescapable fact that to fix problems you must be aware of problems; and like Vice President Al Gore’s boring analysis of the social security lock box, outlining the solutions to insurmountable problems can’t be given in a catch phrase. The one who knows the issues and gives at lease the beginning of a solution looks intelligent while the other shallow catch phrase response reminds one of Mark Twain’s famous quote about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
Jobs
So substance is what we’re after as we build our "issues" candidate. First, consider that offering cake when there is no bread isn’t a solution. The Census Bureau has supported the data that poverty in the United States has grown while jobs have been lost. Once at the top of the tech industry, we can no longer compete where we once shone. Japan is making rapid strides in robotics and cloning and other countries are ahead of us in stem cell research and several are rapidly moving into space travel. That’s jobs lost to the U. S; professional, high paying jobs that we’ve lost because we’ve lost our nation's initiative. Does any of the three candidates talk about how to get it back? NAFTA is a perfect example of how important problems get redirected. Both Democratic candidates admitted they believed NAFTA should be reformed at very least; however, the issues of NAFTA has deteriorated into name calling because of the release of a Canadian memo saying Senator Obama wasn’t serious about reform.
I am not debating the merits of NAFTA, the validity of the Canadian government but the way the NAFTA debate was downgraded to accusations against Senator Clinton for releasing the information although it came from a legitimate Canadian news source; not an investigation of whether or not the allegations were true. This Canadian memo could have been the springboard to a serious, intense and solution orientated discussion of the issue by Senator Obama and Senator Clinton and the winner of that debate would have been the voters. But the two candidates were so busy defending themselves against finger pointing that the opportunity was lost and the losers are the voters. Score one for the status quo on this jobs issue.
Heath care
Everyone wants universal health care; except the politicians who have the best "universal" health care the Legislative branch can provide. What more important issue to the voters is there than the life of their child? I doubt you will find one. But try to pin down the candidates on just exactly what their health care policy is really going to be. Most voters have no idea where McCain stands on the health care issue because it just isn’t very importance to his political party.
However, with Democrats it is a Big Ticket item and neither candidate dares to ignore it. So Senator Obama, not a previously outspoken critic of our health care industry during his Illinois Senate service or his tenure in the U. S. Senate needed to scramble to come up with a Plan. Unfortunately, his staff should have at least watched SICKO before deciding what Senator Obama wanted because, unless he has changed his mind, insurance companies still play a big role in health care. He stated that he wanted mandatory insurance for the uninsured and proposed that those without the money to pay the premiums be given a needs test that would make them eligible for the government to pick up the balance of the tab.
Not only does that keep funding insurance companies but that puts the whole program under Entitlements and Entitlements are the first to come under the budget cutting knife in an attempt to hold down government costs. If you don’t believe it, just check out Head Start, students loans, etc. for what happens when taxpayers are given back some of the tax money they pay in.
And of course, nothing tells us what will be done about catastrophic illnesses insurance won’t cover or coverage that has topped out (that’s where insurance companies tell you that you have spent too much of their money and they ain’t payin’ any more) or pre existing conditions. These problems are just as important as coughing up that money for the premium - no, they are MORE important because being able to PAY for insurance doesn’t always mean the insurance PAYS for medical care. In 2001 insurance rates for a chronic illness for one family I know was $2,500 per month and the policy did not cover anything that could be connected to the chronic condition. And it’s even worse today, which is why just paying for insurance for the uninsured isn’t enough.
Senator Clinton, of course, got slapped down really hard during her husband’s first term when she tried to fix the health care industry. So hard, in fact, that she has backed off of universal health care that might step on the insurance industry’s toes knowing that the unelected can fix nothing. Her plan is based on her experience and does accomplish a better chance for the uninsured to receive coverage as she would like to see every citizen covered with the same plan that Congress has. She had mentioned pre existing conditions and insurance caps so she is at least aware of the problem.
Senator Obama claims his experience as a community director and civil rights lawyer as making up for any inexperience he may have. Senator Clinton, also a lawyer, has years of experience working for Children’s Rights for most of her pre-legislative career which should at least be the equal of Senator Obama’s experience.
The war
Senator McCain, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have all refused to unequivocally state that we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. All three senators have still voted to fund the war we all hate during their years in the Senate. Senator McCain has been quoted as saying that we might perhaps remain in Iraq for a hundred years. Senator Obama has stated that when he does withdraw the troops, he would redeploy them into other middle eastern countries to continue to fight terrorists. Senator Clinton says she plans to get out as fast as possible and will begin to bring the troops from Iraq as soon as she becomes president but feels we may have to maintain a "presence" in the region for a time.
The most important issue facing the candidates about the Iraq war is not if we "win" or "loose" but what is going to happen to Our country if we remain. We’re in such bad economic trouble that the country, like its citizens, could easily declare bankruptcy. Most of our allies no longer respect our decision making ability and many downright distrust us. Our traditional enemies, Russia and China, grow stronger daily thanks to our import investment programs in their future. Even our stature in the middle East which previously produced uneasy truces among traditional enemies has ceased. There is absolutely no question that one of our most important issues for our president will be the consequences of the Iraq war.
Only one candidate has military experience. Only one candidate has had to make strategic decisions based on war. And that candidate is John McCain. As a career Navy officer and a POW of the VietCong for almost 6 years, he has a real understanding of what will it takes to face an enemy day in and day out in a subservient position. He understands precisely the consequences of a wrong move. There is no question that he is the more experienced candidate of the three in the area of war.
And of the three Senator Obama is the least experienced with adversity and personal attacks. He needs to tell us exactly what experience in his background can reassure us that he can manage a continued war in the middle east or what negotiating skills he will use to get us out.
Senator Clinton has been under attack since her husband was elected to the presidency in 1993. And no critic has said that she can’t take a punch and keep going. If she could keep her cool after 8 years of Ken Starr that produced no improprieties, perhaps she can negotiate with both enemies and friends.
So the real Issue comes down to do we need a military leader to continue our war in the Middle East or do we want to negotiate our way out? One solution requires McCain, the other either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Both candidates need to reassure us as to how they plan to accomplish their goal of removing the United States military out of Iraq with the least amount of damage to our nation. And they need to do it now.
Global warming
One long neglected Issue is our environment which includes a multitude of sins from global warming to the energy crisis. We are already in the beginning stages of both. We have seen the results of global warming begin to spread throughout our planet. Desert people have already had to pull back to more hospitable areas because of the water supply. It will only get worse as more and more arid land become uninhabitable and more and more people will be forced to crowd into other areas.
And whether or not you wish to call it global warming, an unhealthy trend has been sweeping through our world. Storms forming more record setting tornados and hurricanes that wreck havoc upon coasts and the interior and yet semi arid areas are quickly imposing water rationing because of drought like conditions, from Arizona to Georgia. In 2005 a record setting hurricane season destroyed one of our oldest cities, New Orleans, while fierce tornardos destroyed towns and cities in their paths. Thousands of lives have been lost and this is just the opening salvo of global warming.
Energy
We are also seeing the beginning of an energy crisis that will change voters lives forever as gas becomes unaffordable; thus limiting travel and supply lines. We have already seen the beginning of rolling brownouts and outright blackouts in many cities during heat waves, with the corresponding warnings for those with respiratory ailments and heart conditions to go to shelters if they lose power.
But where do the candidates stand on these issues? Do any of the three plan to implement emergency plans to shore up our failing power grids, our water shortages, our overwhelmed cities almost obliterated by snow and ice storms? According to what I have seen, most of the plans rely on continuing to use oil, to use it more efficiently and to subsidize it with "alternate energy sources". Senator Obama proposed a 20% reduction in oil use by 2012, which is a 1.6% decrease per year. Senator Clinton is proposing to create a Strategic Energy Fund to transition to clean energy. What we need is a three way open in depth debate about these proposals so we know how much the candidates really know about the issue and that they understand the constraints of implementing these proposals. On this one, they need to bring in the experts they are listening to in forming their plans.
Soon it will be too late to choose a candidate based on The Issues and we will be left with more information about who did what to whom than to what solutions are proposed. We’ll be choosing a candidate based on our ignorance of the issues, on personality -- he’s cuter, she’s old.
But we’ll be missing these facts about the candidates. None of them are young; one candidate was born in the midst of the Great Depression, two are babyboomers; their ideology on the issues is not fresh and new. Two of the three went through the turbulent times connected with the Viet Nam war era and the volatile, often violent, struggle for equality for both blacks and women. One grew up outside of the U. S. and totally missed the struggle that has shaped the lives of everyone born during the post World War II baby boom.
Their ability to bring change in any form is limited by the old guard still in the legislature. They all come from middle class families, one was born in the west, one in the midwest and one in a new island state. One comes from a long line of military commanders, one from a typical middle class family, and one raised in a tropical Polynesian paradise in a transplanted white family from the midwest. Two are males, one a female. All arrived at this juncture in their lives from different directions.
Senator John McCain spent his life serving his country in the military and, after retirement, as a public servant.
Senator Barack Obama spent his life, until age 18 outside the cultural society of the United States until he moved to the mainland after his 1979 high school graduation and then moved to Chicago to work as a community director sometime in 1983 before returning to law school in 1988.
Senator Hillary Clinton, influenced by President Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt, spent her life as a community volunteer and worked as a legal advocate for Children’s Right.
As far as "political" experience; 72 year old John McCain has been in the Legislative branch of government 26 years. 60 year old Hillary Clinton has been in the Legislative branch of government for 8 years. 47 year old Barack Obama has been in the Legislative branch of government for less than 3 years.
The candidates are like old fashioned suitors coming to call. They dress up in their Sunday best, sit in our parlors and politely agree with everything we say but, as last week had taught us once again, many of us have once again fallen for smooth talking promises and a 100 watt smile even though we know more about the staid suitor from next door than the one who just moved to town. And remember that once the "witty" playboy GWB moved into Our House we couldn’t get him out.
Build your candidate from his/her stand on the issues that are important to you and never forget your life, and the lives of your loved ones, and the fate of this country, are in those hands. And sound bites provide no solutions so try to make a difference by voting for yourself, not a candidate's carefully cultivated image.
--information contained in this article was taken from published articles or internet sites open to everyone and no political or restricted sites were used.