The Best Candidate

Over the past couple of days I've been reading through the comments to various diaries by folks who have apparently finished their candidate shopping early and are supporting one candidate or another. I find it sad that many of these folks seem more focused on the "electability" of their candidate or are more focused on getting any Democrat into the White House than they are on getting some important issues addressed.

I'll state my agenda for this election right up front here; my primary issues are (1) restoring the Constitution and the rule of law (which requires that the Bush administration be called to account legally for its crimes) and, (2) ending the war in Iraq and preventing any further illegal wars of aggression against other countries. I am not committed to any candidate yet.

So who is the best candidate?

The best candidate is the one that will unequivocally and without hedging stand up on their hind legs and state their support for your position; has a track record of voting, acting and speaking in support of your position; has a compelling life narrative that demonstrates that that the candidate lives your values.

Someone yesterday noted that politicians make promises that they fail to keep, that even, say, a candidate like George McGovern made certain promises that we can't know if he would have kept. I'd say that we can only make predictions before a candidate is elected and serves. The above criteria are no guarantee, but they are the best predictors that I can come up with. If you think about it, we, using the power of our voices, actions and exercising our Constitutional rights are the guarantors of right action by our elected officials.

The next best candidate is the one that will unequivocally and without hedging stand up on their hind legs and state their support for your position; has a mixed record of support your issues, however the candidate has identified the errors made and admits them; the candidate has had a progressive epiphany some reasonable length of time ago and has created a track record of working on your issues and demonstrates that your values have been integrated into the candidate's life.

The unacceptable candidate is the one that hedges, equivocates and deflects questions about your issues; that has made mistakes in the past that they will not admit and uses rhetorical tricks (and even outrageous lies) to recast their prior votes, actions and statements to appear to not conflict with your issues; a candidate whose life does not appear to resonate with your values.

Finally, I wanted to address a point that somebody made that I've seen elsewhere, which is that candidates shouldn't engage the Democratic leadership in Congress over impeachment and enforcing subpoenas, that it would cause a distracting ruckus that would likely scare off voters who would be attracted to the candidate's other positions. I find this to be a truly scary argument.

If you think that a candidate cannot "safely" run for President and at the same time stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law when it is plainly evident that the sitting President and Vice President have committed crimes and impeachable acts - then our democratic republic is dead and rather than spending your time voting you should probably be looking for a good place to hide.

•  tip jar

  pshew! rant over. i feel much better now. B)

  by joe shikspack on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:02:21 AM PDT

•  two and three equal importance

  by penguinsong on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:06:07 AM PDT

  •  Excellent call nt

    by Ocean Stater on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

•  There with you...

  Finally, I wanted to address a point that somebody made that I've seen elsewhere, which is that candidates shouldn't engage the Democratic leadership in Congress over impeachment and enforcing subpoenas, that it would cause a distracting ruckus that would likely scare off voters who would be attracted to the candidate's other positions. I find this to be a truly scary argument.

  I mean I'm not sure impeachment is a good idea at this point. Executing and investigating what lies behind the subpoenas would definitely be a prereq to any impeachment proceedings.

  But I definitely agree that candidates shouldn't be afraid of scaring off voters. Good candidates rally voters behind their issues. It's their job to sell voters on issues. Plus, liberals are just starting to realize that you don't beat the right by trying to be "moderate" while they're pushing further right, you win by sticking tough and letting the American people decide based on the superiority of your values and position on the issues.

  by mac Cumhail on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:11:05 AM PDT

  •  impeachment is a great idea at this point

    Bush has all but dared the congress to do it, he has pretty much admitted to violating FISA and his failure to respond to subpoenas and pressuring his subordinates not to respond to subpoenas is an obstruction of justice. One of the articles of impeachment that was placed against Nixon was a similar obstruction of justice.

    In fact, impeachment is not just a good idea, it's a great place to start in terms of discovering the truth about the outrageous criminality of the Bush administration - that runs the gamut from crony corruption to war crimes - and is a down-payment on setting things right.

    by joe shikspack on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:11:04 AM PDT

•  Most important?

  But those things aren't mutually exclusive.  We need to elect a Democrat so that we can restore the Constitution end the Iraq war and prevent the Iran war.  It's a package deal.  That's why saying people are being petty for focusing on electabilty isn't really fair.  The first time I voted was for Dukakis who got nominated because his platform was the righteous platform.  But of course the policies of the next four years were those of Old Bush.  If we had run a candidate who was appealing to more voters we may have prevented the first Gulf war and all the horrors that have followed.  When you're a member of a political party you actually have a responsibility to try to nominate a candidate who you think will win.  Obviously people have different ideas of who that might be but that doesn't mean it's not worth arguing about.  

  By the way, I think we are lucky this time in that our most electable candidate is also a constitutional scholar.  That's got me fired up.  

  by Sun dog on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:26:54 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of something about his

    (I guess you're refering to Obama) fumbling answer to that "drivers' license for illegals" question that had tripped up Hillary, also.

    The writer of this piece says he should have been prepared, and

    The Harvard-educated lawyer, a former University of Chicago Constitutional Law professor missed the issue entirely.  The correct answer to the question is this:  

    The US Constitution is a grant of powers to the Federal Government from the states.  Powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.  

    Driver's licensing is not a power given to the Federal Government.  It is a state issue.  As president of the US, I would have neither authority nor responsibility for driver's license issues.

    That answer is both accurate and succinct.  It is readily understandable.  It would have demonstrated both Obama's intellect and his credentials as a constitutional scholar.

    Instead..."

    by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:46:05 AM PDT

    •  No it wouldn't

      I'm sorry, but I totally disagree.  While it's technically correct it shows a complete lack of instincts about how presidential politics play out.  If he answered that way he would have been slammed as being an elitist wonk who dodges questions.  People want presidential candidates to give their opinions on freakin everything.  It's not like a regular job interview.  If he had given the answer the diarist is giving he would have gotten slaughtered on it.  

      I'm not saying he handled that situation smoothly as it was.  But the whole thing was just designed as a gotcha and it got him a little bit.  It doesn't really have anything to do with policy.  It's just one of those, "What's your stance on..." type of things.  Half the stuff we ask candidates about isn't something that they can just make into law anyway.  Most of the questions they get assume that they will be king of the world and decreeing everything from what happens exactly to Social Security to what people will call gay marriage.  It's because they are influential in all of these things, including immigration policy.  So people want an answer to those questions even if they're just symbolic.  Saying, "Well that aint my job," by citing the Constitution would destroy you on the stump.  

      by Sun dog on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:13:18 AM PDT

  •  you are a person of great faith

    We need to elect a Democrat so that we can restore the Constitution end the Iraq war and prevent the Iran war.  It's a package deal.  That's why saying people are being petty for focusing on electabilty isn't really fair.

    I don't trust any politician, purely on the basis of his or her party affiliation to do these things.

    I could never have imagined a Democrat doing a lot of the things that a certain recent Democratic president did, like starving half a million kids and invading a foreign nation after hyping a national security threat and undermining UN inspections in order to overthrow a foreign head of state.

    I want a candidate that meets my criteria of either the best candidate or the next best candidate - not just anybody who has lots of money, name recognition and an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

    by joe shikspack on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:22:03 AM PDT

•  Good, meaningful criteria.

  If they act weasely while running, and trying to get votes, they'll be even worse once (if) "safely" elected.

  There was a diary the other day about Edwards asking people to pledge not to vote for any candidate accepting money from DC lobbyists or PACs:  ...America Belongs to Us, with a lot of "I will not play by the Washington establishment's rules... I will not compromise with the people who are powerful... I will fight for you like I have fought for people like you my entire life."

  I commented to the effect:

  I'd like a nice, appropriately contrite pledge from John Edwards that he will never again vote for an odious piece of legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, that kneecapped the Constitution and gave so many of the People's liberties to the government, on a platter.

  Further, I'd like to know what he thinks of the upcoming  S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, that is another in the same vein.  

  If anyone knows something in this regard, I'm listening...

  by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

•  "Broken Government" by John Dean...

  Dean is VERY emphatic that another 4 to 8 years of Republican "rule" (they don't govern), will make the Executive AND Judiciary branches just an arm of the Republican party and totally destroy the basic processes by which our government functions.

  I don't believe ANY of the Democratic candiates will continue this destruction. The Democratic President will have to turn around the politization of the entire Executive and Judical branches and the DoJ.  

  If any of our purists keep saying that they cannot vote in the GE for a Democrat if it isn't "their" candidate, then I strong suggest they read this book.  

  The most important thing for all of us is to return control of the Government to the Democrats.  If we can get a nominee who fits our particular ideology, great; if not, then we just build from there.

  by Wanda517 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:42:47 AM PDT

•  All of the Above

  I picked Iraq War -- but they are all important.  

  by kubrick2008 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:01:41 AM PDT

•  I want someone who's not in denial about

  a.  The environmental disaster we're now facing, and starting to live through.

  b.  The ramifications of that.

  c.  Peak Oil.  

  d.  The ramification of THAT (economic and otherwise)

  e.  Justice for OBVIOUS and DANGEROUS criminals in the Bush Administration and those who help them in the business and/or legal world.

  I don't see very much of this AT ALL from ANY of our "candidates".  At all.  We're literally being inexorably slid into the crematorium, and nobody really wants to pay attention.  Except Al Gore, and he's not running.  

  In other words:  we're so fucked.

  by theyrereal on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:12:33 AM PDT