Faith + Reason = Truth

1 Trend Is Holding, 1 Isn't

First, the trend that looks like it will end its 44-year run on November 4.  Here's my post from over 20 months ago:

February 09, 2007

Stunning U.S. Election Trend

Quickly, off the top of your head, would you assume it's advantageous to have been an elected official in or representing the State of New York if you're running for President of the United States?  What about Georgia or Arkansas?  The answer may surprise you, as the following score shows:      

  U.S. Presidents Elected* from 1964 - 2004

# of terms by Presidents that served in/for states with capitals SOUTH of Washington, D.C.  = 11

# of terms by Presidents that served in/for states with capitals NORTH of Washington, D.C.  = 0

   * Ford assumed the Presidency and was not elected, so is not counted here
          
Told you it was stunning!  I'll follow up with some high-level bios for every President elected from LBJ to W, along with 3 current front-runners for each of the 2 major parties.  Wonder if the Party Leaderships pay any attention to this kind of thing?

______________________________________________________________________________________

October 31 commentary on that post:  clearly, Obama represents a northern state, and McCain does not.  But at least McCain made it to the nominee, coming from WAY behind against representatives of northern states to do so!

Now, for a trend that looks to continue with Obama:

February 28, 2007

You'd Better Be Ivy League If You Want To Be President

Tying in a bit with an earlier post on the strength of university networking vs. former places of employment networking, we take a look at past U.S. Presidents and current hopefuls.  The winners of the last 5 Presidential elections, going back to 1988, all have Ivy League educations, be it undergrad, law/graduate, or both.  Harvard and Yale are the players here.  Among the early primary favorites for both parties, the advantage would go to Hillary (Yale Law), Romney and Obama (both Harvard men).  And no breaking news here, but if Romney were to be elected to the Oval Office, he would become the second Presidential holder of an MBA (though he also holds a Law degree and therefore would not be the rare non-lawyer President; the current Bush was the 1st President to hold an MBA).  Hillary and Obama each hold degrees in Law.

______________________________________________________________________________________

October 31 commentary on that post:  McCain was no slouch, attending the Naval Academy, but it wasn't Ivy.

Finally, this last one wasn't a "trend" so much as a very early call on what could come to pass:

February 24, 2007

Presidential Contest Could Be Over Before It Starts

Unbelievably (at least in my mind), Oprah Winfrey has already backed a candidate for the 2008 Presidential election.  It's only February of '07.  As my "O Power" post from earlier in the week suggested, I am in awe of the influence she has over the women of America, and women make up the majority of the electorate.  She's also very influential among the black community, although I would argue that her universal appeal to all women is more broad-based than her appeal to African-Americans.  She's keeping her options open with a nod to Hillary and how great she thinks she is, but is now officially on record as supporting Barrack Obama, after comments made on Ellen's show.
Here's a link to an "outside the U.S." perspective on the battle for star power between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which could have a significant impact on the 2008 campaign.  It's not the ONLY thing that matters in the national election between Democrat and Republican, as evidenced by Bush's two triumphs over heavily Hollywood-backed Democrat opponents, but in determining the Democratic candidate who will actually be on the ballot next November, it is very significant.

Quickly, off the top of your head, would you assume it's advantageous to have been an elected official in or representing the State of New York if you're running for President of the United States?  What about Georgia or Arkansas?  The answer may surprise you, as the following score shows:      

  U.S. Presidents Elected* from 1964 - 2004

# of terms by Presidents that served in/for states with capitals SOUTH of Washington, D.C.  = 11

# of terms by Presidents that served in/for states with capitals NORTH of Washington, D.C.  = 0

   * Ford assumed the Presidency and was not elected, so is not counted here
          
Told you it was stunning!  I'll follow up with some high-level bios for every President elected from LBJ to W, along with 3 current front-runners for each of the 2 major parties.  Wonder if the Party Leaderships pay any attention to this kind of thing?

______________________________________________________________________________________

October 31 commentary on that post:  clearly, Obama represents a northern state, and McCain does not.  But at least McCain made it to the nominee, coming from WAY behind against representatives of northern states to do so!

Now, for a trend that looks to continue with Obama:

February 28, 2007

You'd Better Be Ivy League If You Want To Be President

Tying in a bit with an earlier post on the strength of university networking vs. former places of employment networking, we take a look at past U.S. Presidents and current hopefuls.  The winners of the last 5 Presidential elections, going back to 1988, all have Ivy League educations, be it undergrad, law/graduate, or both.  Harvard and Yale are the players here.  Among the early primary favorites for both parties, the advantage would go to Hillary (Yale Law), Romney and Obama (both Harvard men).  And no breaking news here, but if Romney were to be elected to the Oval Office, he would become the second Presidential holder of an MBA (though he also holds a Law degree and therefore would not be the rare non-lawyer President; the current Bush was the 1st President to hold an MBA).  Hillary and Obama each hold degrees in Law.

______________________________________________________________________________________

October 31 commentary on that post:  McCain was no slouch, attending the Naval Academy, but it wasn't Ivy.

Finally, this last one wasn't a "trend" so much as a very early call on what could come to pass:

February 24, 2007

Presidential Contest Could Be Over Before It Starts

Unbelievably (at least in my mind), Oprah Winfrey has already backed a candidate for the 2008 Presidential election.  It's only February of '07.  As my "O Power" post from earlier in the week suggested, I am in awe of the influence she has over the women of America, and women make up the majority of the electorate.  She's also very influential among the black community, although I would argue that her universal appeal to all women is more broad-based than her appeal to African-Americans.  She's keeping her options open with a nod to Hillary and how great she thinks she is, but is now officially on record as supporting Barrack Obama, after comments made on Ellen's show.
Here's a link to an "outside the U.S." perspective on the battle for star power between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which could have a significant impact on the 2008 campaign.  It's not the ONLY thing that matters in the national election between Democrat and Republican, as evidenced by Bush's two triumphs over heavily Hollywood-backed Democrat opponents, but in determining the Democratic candidate who will actually be on the ballot next November, it is very significant.

Tying in a bit with an earlier post on the strength of university networking vs. former places of employment networking, we take a look at past U.S. Presidents and current hopefuls.  The winners of the last 5 Presidential elections, going back to 1988, all have Ivy League educations, be it undergrad, law/graduate, or both.  Harvard and Yale are the players here.  Among the early primary favorites for both parties, the advantage would go to Hillary (Yale Law), Romney and Obama (both Harvard men).  And no breaking news here, but if Romney were to be elected to the Oval Office, he would become the second Presidential holder of an MBA (though he also holds a Law degree and therefore would not be the rare non-lawyer President; the current Bush was the 1st President to hold an MBA).  Hillary and Obama each hold degrees in Law.

______________________________________________________________________________________

October 31 commentary on that post:  McCain was no slouch, attending the Naval Academy, but it wasn't Ivy.

Finally, this last one wasn't a "trend" so much as a very early call on what could come to pass:

February 24, 2007

Presidential Contest Could Be Over Before It Starts

Unbelievably (at least in my mind), Oprah Winfrey has already backed a candidate for the 2008 Presidential election.  It's only February of '07.  As my "O Power" post from earlier in the week suggested, I am in awe of the influence she has over the women of America, and women make up the majority of the electorate.  She's also very influential among the black community, although I would argue that her universal appeal to all women is more broad-based than her appeal to African-Americans.  She's keeping her options open with a nod to Hillary and how great she thinks she is, but is now officially on record as supporting Barrack Obama, after comments made on Ellen's show.
Here's a link to an "outside the U.S." perspective on the battle for star power between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which could have a significant impact on the 2008 campaign.  It's not the ONLY thing that matters in the national election between Democrat and Republican, as evidenced by Bush's two triumphs over heavily Hollywood-backed Democrat opponents, but in determining the Democratic candidate who will actually be on the ballot next November, it is very significant.

Unbelievably (at least in my mind), Oprah Winfrey has already backed a candidate for the 2008 Presidential election.  It's only February of '07.  As my "O Power" post from earlier in the week suggested, I am in awe of the influence she has over the women of America, and women make up the majority of the electorate.  She's also very influential among the black community, although I would argue that her universal appeal to all women is more broad-based than her appeal to African-Americans.  She's keeping her options open with a nod to Hillary and how great she thinks she is, but is now officially on record as supporting Barrack Obama, after comments made on Ellen's show.
Here's a link to an "outside the U.S." perspective on the battle for star power between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which could have a significant impact on the 2008 campaign.  It's not the ONLY thing that matters in the national election between Democrat and Republican, as evidenced by Bush's two triumphs over heavily Hollywood-backed Democrat opponents, but in determining the Democratic candidate who will actually be on the ballot next November, it is very significant.

Why a Catholic CAN'T (in good conscience) Vote For Obama

October 21, 2008:  that was the day that I opined as a free-thinking citizen of the world on the topic of abortion as an election issue (though vehemently opposed to abortion, I could rationalize how I could still vote for Obama).

October 23, 2008:  this is the day that I write as "a Catholic" and not as "one who attends Catholic Mass" and espouses the faith when it suits me.

It is, in actuality, all about abortion when it comes to election issues and the Church.  In her eyes, there is no greater "intrinsically evil" act than the taking of innocent life, and the numbers regarding abortion are staggering:

48 MILLION innocent human lives have been ended by abortion since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in America 35 years ago.  I assume those numbers are for legal abortions in America, based on the context of the data given, but I have not verified that because it does not matter to me; wherever they lived, they are still dead.

Would Obama make a better leader than McCain?  Would the stock market and my retirement fund fare better over the next 4 or 8 years with Obama?  Would black Americans feel better about our nation if a black President were elected?  Would other nations have their notions of America as a country turned upside down if we were to do that?  It matters not, because millions and millions of innocent lives will be taken by abortion over the next 4 or 8 years with a President who supports the practice as emphatically as it has ever been supported by a potential President.

Can McCain get abortion stopped as President?  I doubt it.  It still seems to be up to the Supreme Court having the right case come along.  But at least he WOULD end it if it were up to him, whereas Obama would not.  And for all the leadership and intelligence and coolness and African heritage in the world, I would not trade the sanctity of the life of an innocent child, let alone millions of them.

Therefore, I cannot support or condone anyone who would stand up in favor of violating that sanctity when I have the option of supporting someone who has done and would continue to do all in their power to protect it.

Why a Catholic Can Vote For Obama

     Not to tip my hand or anything (honestly, I am still undecided, though getting more decided as the days roll on), but I'm referring to my own (along with many others like me) struggle with being a Catholic, being as anti-abortion as they come, and leaning towards voting for a man whose voting record is apparently as pro-baby murder as they come.
   How can this be?  Doesn't that make me the anti-Christ, or at least the anti-Catholic?  No, it really doesn't.  For one thing, I'm not voting for Pope, I'm voting for President of the United States.  If the Pope WERE running for President, I wouldn't necessarily vote for him.  There are countless reasons why our country's government and our citizens' religious beliefs remain separated from one another, and that's how things ought to be in these times.  Long ago, that wasn't the case, but now it is.
     Secondly, many a Catholic priest or bishop will insist that abortion is the one and only issue of relevance in any election.  Many - but not all.  There is the issue of Iraq not being a "just war" in the eyes of Pope John Paul II, and there is the issue of the death penalty being supported by Republicans in general.  There are always opportunities to take steps to reduce (or end) genocide and hunger and poverty around the globe, even if those activities do not directly secure our Middle East oil supply.  Must EVERYTHING we do regarding foreign policy decisions have to be based upon "securing our Middle East oil supply"?  There is the economy.  This, like most elections, is about numerous issues, almost none of which are black and white or right and wrong (except for abortion, of course, which is ALWAYS right vs. wrong).
     The third over-riding reason for me to be ok voting for Obama as a Catholic, if I so choose, is that abortion in America is not going away.  Not in my lifetime, anyway.  I do believe that one day, society will look back on abortion as a barbaric practice that is universally abhorred and condemned, like the universal and ancient institution of slavery before it, but that we aren't close to that day right now.  If the first 6 years of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress couldn't get anything done regarding abortion, it's certainly not going to happen in the present and future Democrat-dominated government of the U.S.  The Supreme Court, which gave us this mess in the first place, is our only chance, if they can somehow rule that it is a state issue and not a federal issue; and although that decision would undoubtedly result in some Southern states outlawing the heinous and foul act, most would not.

$300 Million: Solving Campaign Finance Issue

     John McCain is sticking with publicly financed campaign funds, reportedly in the vicinity of $85 million available to him for the general election campaign this summer and fall.  He's locked into this scenario whether he wants to be or not, so it is not known what his course of action would have been if the choice were presented to him.
     Barack Obama has both options available to him and has changed his mind from using public funds (capped at $85 million) to using private donations (which will be unlimited in total).  It is being reported that he will raise 3-4 times McCain's publicly financed war chest, which calculates to $255 - 340 million.
     Coincidentally, McCain announced this week that he would have a government-sponsored prize of $300 million awarded to people or companies making quantum technological leaps in the field of batteries for autos.  My first thought:  McCain takes $300M and uses it to stimulate a shift away from oil-based transportation.  Obama takes that same $300M and spends it on t.v. commercials to get himself elected.  My logic is flawed though.
     McCain's battery money is government money, whereas Obama's funds are donated by people directly to him.  Therefore, he can use them however he deems fit, provided they are used to get him elected.  In other words, he cannot use them to fund battery development - or can he?
     What if a candidate were to take his election campaign donations and use them to conditionally fund a program, with the condition being that he or she is elected to the office they seek?  Taking that one step further, what if private donors are tapped (the kinds of donors who are only "allowed" to donate a few thousand dollars to a specific candidate or party, even though they would donate far greater sums if the election laws allowed them to do so) explicitly for the purpose of conditionally funding programs to be enacted only on condition of their candidate winning the race?  Could the oil companies, hedge fund managers, and other deep-pocketed yet limited contributors be exploited for the purpose of funding programs that would be in line with the objectives of their candidate or their candidate's party?  Could billions of dollars be raised in this way?
     Certainly, with Obama projected to raise a third of a billion dollars under the current limitations, he could raise several billion in an uncapped scenario, couldn't he?  Take George W. Bush, for instance:  how many billions (or tens of billions) of dollars would the defense contractors, the Halliburtons, etc., and the oil companies, both major and minor, have conditionally contributed to governmental programs in order to ensure 4 more years of his presidency?  If Kerry had won, they would be out nothing.  If Bush pulled it out, the resulting friendly legislative environment could easily cover the program outlay many times over in the course of the ensuing 4 years and beyond.

American Idol President - Update

I've added some details today to an idea in a previous post, so here's what it looks like now (I won't make you click to go there):

So you want to be the President of the United States.  But wait - you say you don't have a "healthcare solution"?  And hold on there - you haven't already made up your mind about whether to commit the troops in Iraq for 10 more years or yank them out the day after your inauguration?  And how about that wall between us and Mexico - SURELY you've already got your preferred chain link fence vendor lined up for a big fat payday, or maybe, conversely, you'd eliminate the Border Patrol altogether.  Well, there may be hope for you yet!  I believe those "big issues" may be nothing more than political hot air, and that real voters would cast real votes based on a candidate's stands on an array of niche issues, and more importantly, on their "feeling of trust" in the candidate him/herself (there's some support for this theory, in a non-scientific poll conducted right here on this very blog).  Case in point:  the Democrats swept into power 3 months ago on a wave of "get us out of Iraq" sentiment.  Here we are, drawing up and debating "non-binding resolutions" that may or may not result in a SEVERE slap of the hand.  Nothing more.  And so it goes with most overarching policies, covering issues too large and unwieldy to be solved or resolved by a President or even a Congress.  So why not base your vote on issues which CAN be addressed and which matter to you, or base it on someone you actually believe when they make a promise (i.e., a non-politician)?  I'll tell you why not - it's because we don't know where the various candidates stand on these issues, because there's no room in the campaign to drive home where they stand on these lesser issues.  If we had a forum, or a scorecard, where candidates could check off where they stand on these myriad "long tail" niche issues, then one candidate may garner enough support based on these lesser issues alone to defeat other candidates who are more broad-based and have propensities to fill themselves and the rest of the Electionsphere with much of their aforementioned hot air.  It won't take much to get this thing rolling, and we're early enough in Campaign 2008 to be able to impact the way that informed voting decisions are derived.  Tell everyone you know, and let's get some traction on this.  We'll do it American Idol-style and get some of Rupert Murdoch's cash horde behind it in the form of "most popular candidate wins a Presidential Election Warchest to campaign with".  I'm serious - Murdoch has not backed a particular candidate as of now, nor does he see himself doing so any time soon.  Give him 1st dibs on a sure-fire ratings hit AND tie it all in to Youtube, where the candidates will post videos that will be voted on to narrow the field, and he's jumping in with both feet!