ARIZONA | Federal Court Unfriendly To Federal Challenge of SB1070

Posted on 2010/11/02 by Bill Golden Editor
Two of the three federal judges are themselves Hispanic. One is an
immigrant and naturalized citizen.

The U.S. Government has argued that the Arizona statute is “preempted”
by federal law. Maybe, maybe not, says the judge.

Federal judge to federal government: “I’ve read your brief, I’ve read
the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two
colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument …”

Something having the potential to violate someone’s rights is not the
same as ‘will’ violate someone’s rights.

READ STORY: Washington Post, ‘Judge questions Justice Department’s
lawsuit against Arizona immigration law’,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/01/AR20101101040…

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The U.S. Constitution As A Living Document

Posted on 2010/10/19 by Bill Golden Editor
“The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they
wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it
keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience.”

–Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE Moves Forward | FLORIDA | Federal judge disses Dems' 'Alice in Wonderland' Health Care Reform Act defense

Posted on 2010/10/15 by Bill Golden Editor
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE | Judge disses Dems’ ‘Alice in Wonderland’
Health Care Reform Act defense

Politico
Judge disses Dems’ ‘Alice in Wonderland’ health defense
By JENNIFER HABERKORN

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday said he will allow some of the
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to
proceed — and criticized Democrats for making an “Alice in Wonderland”
argument to defend the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed two major counts to proceed:
the states’ challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all
Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid
program.

In his ruling, Vinson criticized Democrats for seeking to have it
both ways when it comes to defending the mandate to buy insurance.
During the legislative debate, Republicans chastised the proposal as a
new tax on the middle class. Obama defended the payment as a penalty
and not a tax, but the Justice Department has argued that legally,
it’s a tax.

READ STORY: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43626.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

SECOND AMENDMENT |Judge rules concealed Wisconsin carry ban unconstitutional

Posted on 2010/10/15 by Bill Golden Editor
A judge in Wisconsin has ruled that Wisconsin’s total ban on concealed
carry is unconstitutional, leaving only Illinois with a complete ban.

Other states that are in jeopardy of having their CHP laws ruled
unconstitutional are those which are “may issue” and do not issue
permits in an equitable manner to all law abiding citizens: Maryland,
New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.

As to what this means exactly for Wisconsins is unknown at the moment.
Wisconsin could take a “may issue” approach to concealed carry of
weapons.

==========

“Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional”
by WRN Contributor on October 14, 2010 in Crime & Courts

A Clark County judge says Wisconsin’s ban on carrying concealed
weapons is unconstitutional. In the case, authorities charged a Sauk
City man with carrying a concealed weapon, after he admitted he had a
knife in his waistband. He never threatened anyone. In light of the
landmark Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, attorney
William Poss filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional
grounds. Judge Jon Counsell obliged Wednesday, ruling the law is
overly broad and violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution.

“The government has to have a compelling state interest to do so
(restrict the right to carry) and they have to have the least
restrictive means of doing that,” said Poss. “Public safety obviously
is a state interest, but there’s all kinds of ways to do that in this
regard.” In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to
“go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law
or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a
“realistic alternative.”

As of now, the decision only sets a precedent in Counsell’s court, but
Poss expects the case will be appealed. “It’s ultimately going to get
to either the Wisconsin Supreme Court and or the United States Supreme
Court one way or another,” he predicted. The decision was disseminated
around the state Wednesday, and Poss already had 50 congratulatory
phone messages or e-mails from colleagues by Wednesday afternoon.
“There’s a lot of interest in this obviously,” he said. “It’s not a
left or right type of thing quite frankly. It’s a liberty thing.”

Clark County Assistant District Attorney Dick Lewis said he has 20
days to appeal the ruling, and no decision has been made. Wisconsin is
one of only two states which completely ban carrying concealed
weapons.

From the Wisconsin Radio Network: http://tinyurl.com/2673w8f

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

“Pledge To America” Critiqued by the Concord Coalition

Posted on 2010/09/30 by Bill Golden Editor

Long before there was a Tea Party or Coffee Party or the Beer Party or … there was a group that was concerned about our national debt and deficit: the Concord Coalition.

Formed in the early 1990s, the Concord Coalition has consistently worked proactively to educate and to seek institutional changes in how the U.S. and its citizens manage debt.

Great credit goes to the truly bipartisan effort of the Concord Coalition http://www.concordcoalition.org/ in the late 1990s for supporting policies that not only brought a halt in the growth of our national debt but even put our debt on a reverse course, producing a $1 trillion surplus by 2000.

Below is the Concord Coalition’s view of the Republican’s recently released “Pledge To America”.

Last week, House Republicans offered a “Pledge To America” outlining their fiscal priorities and reform ideas. As with most such campaign manifestos, it is long on base-pleasing rhetoric and short on troublesome details.

The document correctly warns about the dire fiscal outlook and the potential dangers of escalating deficits and debt. Conspicuously missing from the Pledge, however, is any plan to bring deficits down to a sustainable level or even to improve upon the deficit projections in the President’s budget. It is worth noting that such a plan has also been missing from Congressional Democrats this year because Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution.

The net effect of the Pledge policies would do very little, if anything, to rein in our long-term structural budget deficits and may well lead to deficits even higher than under the President’s budget.

Not only would the Republicans cut taxes by more than the President, but they would spend more on defense and repeal cost-saving provisions in this year’s health care reform legislation. In theory, lower spending on non-defense discretionary programs would offset some of this. But savings from discretionary programs, which must be enacted on an annual basis, are far less certain than savings from entitlement reforms or tax increases, which operate on autopilot. Moreover, non-security discretionary spending is not where the major spending growth is projected to occur.

Other Pledge proposals, such as ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and canceling unspent stimulus funds, would have virtually no effect on projected deficits. For the most part, these policies have already played out.

Most significantly, the Pledge does not include recommendations to deal with the biggest spending item — projected increases in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. All that is pledged in this regard is to “make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations.”

That much could be said by AARP or the Democratic National Committee. The issue is not whether such decisions must be made but what those decisions should be. The Pledge leaves us guessing.

On the plus side, the Pledge calls for a “full accounting of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid” along with “benchmarks,” regular reviews and no expansion of unfunded liabilities.”

However, no mention is made of automatic triggers to enforce these benchmarks nor is there an acknowledgment that preventing new unfunded liabilities would still leave us with the unsustainable liabilities we already have. Simply maintaining the status quo is not enough.

Similarly, the pledge to “repeal and replace” the new health care reform legislation leaves open the question of how, and to what extent, health care costs would be brought down. The greatest fiscal risk is that the legislation’s popular insurance reforms will be maintained while its unpopular provisions to pay for them will be dropped. That would leave us with the worst of all possible worlds -– expanded coverage with no discernable means of paying for it.

Unfortunately, with its promises to “ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions,” “eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps,” and “prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick,” the Pledge leaves the impression that these things can be accomplished at no cost and with no mandate to expand the risk pool and prevent an expensive “death spiral” of adverse selection.

What’s missing is any acknowledgement that expanded coverage is going to cost more and someone is going to have to pay for it. It is true, as pointed out in the Pledge, that the new health care law “does little to address the nation’s growing fiscal crisis,” but the law does offset the cost of expanded coverage with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Some of those offsets may ultimately fall short, and Republicans may want to enact a different approach to health care reform, but simply repealing the new law would not improve the deficit projections.

Because details are omitted, it is impossible to project with any precision what the deficit would look like if the Pledge policies were followed. It is possible, however, to make certain observations based on official projections. The most telling of these observations is that extending all of the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add $4.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Extending the numerous other tax cuts scheduled to expire, sometimes referred to as “the extenders,” would add another $2.8 trillion. That $7.6 trillion addition to the “baseline” deficit of $6.2 trillion would bring cumulative deficits to nearly $14 trillion.

Even assuming that the Republican estimate of roughly $1 trillion in savings from lower discretionary spending could be achieved, deficits would still remain at unsustainable levels. This is not a “path to a balanced budget” or a plan to “pay down the debt” as claimed in the Pledge.

The Pledge To America makes it clear that House Republicans favor low taxes and limited government. That is a consistent and perfectly sound policy. What the Pledge lacks, however, is any indication that House Republicans are prepared to do what is necessary to achieve this goal. Without more detail about the hard choices, it is a pledge to equivocate.

READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE: A Dubious Pledge by the Concord Coalition

Posted in National/Public Debt, Republican Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

I would rather not swim in circles…

Posted on 2010/09/23 by Bill Golden Editor

by Alan P. Alborn
Environmentalist, Photographer, philosophy student, Independent voter, and occasionally a consultant.

I took my family to the aquarium yesterday. It’s a beautiful place. We watched the Sharks and Stingrays swim in circles past the viewing window. Later, we went to a Dolphin show to watch these beautiful creatures perform tricks on queue. The “trick” is to watch the handlers, not the Dolphins, to figure out the queues.

I couldn’t help but think of an analog to human behavior. Is it better to Iive a long, secure life swimming circles in a tank for your food or to take your chances in the open seas and the risks it poses? These creatures want for nothing; however, they also have nothing. Those who give them what they have may take it away just as quickly.

There are those who view us as creatures to cage. They see Government as our “handler” taking care of our every need as long as we are willing to swim in circles or perform on queue. I am always interested in what makes a person self-select as someone who thinks they should be the others “handler”.

I’m watching the battle between the left and he right, the liberals and the Conservatives, the Tea Party and the many Liberal Organizations trying to emulate the Tea Party, etc., etc., etc. As they compete for influence. All of these groups are lead by people who want to be other people’s “handlers”. What frightens me the most is that most people appear to want to be “handled”. They are looking for queues. They appear to be happy swimming in circles as long as they are fed regularly.

Government defines our cage. We elect our “handlers”. I will be looking for people who want to tear down our cage by reducing the size and influence of Government.

I don’t want to swim in circles. I long for the open seas… and am willing to face the risks. I just wonder how I may influence others to join me.

READ ORIGINAL:  I would rather not swim in circles…

Posted in Coffee Party, Democratic Party, Independents, Political Process, Republican Party | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Freedom of Speech gets its day in court on October 6, 2010

Posted on 2010/09/05 by Bill Golden Editor

Westboro Baptist Church will have its day in court again on October 6th, 2010.

Westboro and its fundamentalist Christian pastor Fred Phelps often picket at the funerals of U.S. military killed overseas in war. Why? The pastor and the church believe that these military members are dying because of America’s sin. Pastor Phelps says “We don’t have to answer to anybody for our preaching.”

The group often taunts families with signs like “Your son is in hell.”

This is an ugly face of Christianity.

Westboro Baptist Funeral Protest

From USAToday: Westboro Baptist Funeral Protest

Read USAToday’s full story

I do not believe that free speech is open-ended nor should it be.

However, we must be careful in how we deal with free speech. It can be an avalanche once folks start putting any limits on speech.

For over 200 years we have wrestled with what freedom means.

While still a young country, only 10 years old, John Adams passed four bills that were really the nation’s first ‘Patriot Act’ in 1798, aka the ‘Alien and Sedition Acts’.

One of these acts was the ‘Sedition Act’ which defined treasonable activity as including the publication of “any false, scandalous and malicious writing,” as a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Soon after its passage 25 men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down. Some were fined $1000 (a monstrous sum in those days) and sent to prison for four months.

“Scandalous and malicious” pretty much covers so many things that in 200+ years we still have not figured out how to deal with freedom of speech to everyone’s satisfaction.

Thomas Jefferson lead the effort to repeal the ‘Sedition Act’ when he became president. As a Jeffersonian, I believe that freedom of speech is just that, no matter how ugly, and freedom of religion is just that, no matter how much we disagree on tenets, and I believe that freedom of … is freedom.

I’m sure however that we can get creative about how to deal with folks like Westboro Baptist Church. The first major step would be if other Christians spoke strongly in condemning the actions of the church, instead of remaining generally silent.

Posted in First (1st) Amendment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Health Care Reform Act Headed for the Supreme Court due to Partial Victory by Virginia Constitutional Challenge? Yes.

Posted on 2010/08/03 by Bill Golden Editor

by Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com and JeffersonConservative.com

The Health Care Reform Act, AKA ObamaCare as it is called by both supporters and detractors, has stumbled badly in its attempt to fend off a constitutional challenge posed by Virginia.

On Monday, August 2nd, 2010, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson denied Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the new health care insurance law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don’t.

The stumble comes from the entire Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) depending upon the individual mandate for the HCRA to have meaning. Please remember that Virginia chose carefully as to how it challenged the HCRA’s constitutionality: it did not challenge the power of the Congress to pass such a bill; Virginia challenged the constitutionality of requiring individuals to have health insurance.

Failing to overcome Virginia’s challenge, the fate of the HCRA now goes to a court trial to begin October 18th, 2010. Win or lose, both parties will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The effective outcome is that many states will delay beginning to implement the HCRA until its constitutionality is determined. Just as Arizona is stymied in its ability to implement portions of SB1070 so is it the same for the HCRA whose first requirements and benefits went into effect as of July 2010.

My view is that Arizona will ultimately prevail at the Supreme Court level and Virginia may well also prevail.

Back on March 21st 2010, just hours before the vote was taken in the House on the Senate version of the HCRA, I gave my opinion and an overview of the constitutional issues facing the HCRA.

My opinion then and now: “As much as I believe health care reform is needed, and needed now, the senate version of health care reform is both unconstitutional and overreaching. If the senate bill should be passed by the House then it will be more of chimeral victory that will be defeated in the SCOTUS due to its many flawed provisions, rather than the total sum value of its intent.”

For more info: What the press is saying about this development.

Bill Golden is an independent observer of American politics, trends and economics. Bill’s political views meet at the crossroads of conservatism, libertarianism and being a practical centrist. No longer a member of any political party, Bill would undoubtedly be declared a DINO if he were a Democrat and a RINO if he were Republican.

Posted in Fifth (5th) Amendment, Health Care, Tenth (10th) Amendment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Dogs, Cats, the Left, the Right and Election 2010

Posted on 2010/07/12 by Bill Golden Editor

by Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com

E. J. Donne, Jr., editorialized in the Washington Post: “The left needs a right brain“.

As E. J. Donne sees the Democratic challenge, which he has no problem identifying as the Left:

“On the one hand, independent voters are turning on them. Democratic House candidates enjoyed a 51 percent to 43 percent advantage over Republicans in 2008. This time, the polls show independents tilting Republican by substantial margins.”

“But Democrats are also suffering from a lack of enthusiasm among their own supporters. Poll after poll has shown that while Republicans are eager to cast ballots, many Democrats seem inclined to sit out this election.”

“The dilemma is that arguments that might motivate partisans could further alienate the less-ideological independents. The classic formulation holds that the party can either move left to excite its base or move to the center to win back independents.”

As I see it: The Left are cats and the Right are dogs.

Cats refuse to cooperate unless they feel like it. They have no sense of common bonding, and they are nice to you only when they want something. Disagreements happen. Kick a cat and it will leave the room or scratch you … maybe never to come back. They don’t handle rough treatment well. When bored they create mischief among themselves.

Dogs crave togetherness. They easily follow a pack leader. Bonding is what they do — just because you are another dog or seem friendly to dogs. Kick a dog and he may growl and bite but it will remain with the pack. Abuse happens … but dogs have short memories. Dogs know that disagreement can sometimes be rough. They react accordingly but do not run away.

The Left are cats. The Right are dogs.

The Left seldom rallies around an idea, only issues. The Right may be dogmatic but some central core tenets of belief unite. A few choice words are enough to equate to the secret hand shake that calls forth unity.

The Left unites only for a cause celebre and then drifts away. There are no tenets of faith or belief on the Left — loyalty is to self and not to group.

The energized few can overwhelm the disengaged majority. Like them or not, the Tea Party has focused on staying energized and on building a sense of community.

I am an independent. I vote for the person and not the party. Voted Bush in 2000 and voted Kerry in 2004, then McCain in 2008. I voted for the Democrat as my governor and the Republican as my senator. I am an independent.

As an independent I see little to like on either side at the moment. But most definitely I see absolutely no change that I can believe in.

The Democrat’s core challenge: I can vote blind for a Republican and I feel 80% assured that I know what the candidate will do once elected. A dog is a dog. The Democrats represent no core philosophy. I would never pull the lever for a Democrat ‘just because’. Future demographics are working against the mostly aged and caucasian Republican party. Yet the Democrats cannot seem to master even a simple message that they themselves believe in — that is the real challenge of Election 2010 for the Left, aka the Democrats.

Posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

If you're scared of extremes… watch this space!

Posted on 2010/07/10 by AAlborn

by Al Alborn  www.alborn.net

Anyone who follow my blog knows I’m a Libertarian with a foot on the Right (fiscal responsibility) and the left (social liberal). This means I’m always looking for compromise candidates. I have a rather unique view of the world because I explored (actually was a founding member and National Spokesperson for) the Coffee Party and the Tea Party.

Of course (in my opinion), the Coffee Party “ran out of grounds” a long time ago. It took the Coffee Party a long time to get 3000 Progressive votes (just look at the results) for its last poll (and that required quite a few extensions). I believe that probably represents an optimistic estimate of membership. In my opinion, It’s just a place for hard core Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives to confirm one another’s view of the world. Perhaps “One Nation” (see link,below) will “perk” things up a bit; however, as a Libertarian I’ll only watch with interest to gather intelligence for defeating Progressive candidates. While the Coffee Party presents itself as an inclusive group open to all points of view, it is not. As someone I know likes to say, they are not what they would like to appear to be. Ironic…

The Tea Party, on the other hand, continues to “”pick up steam”. It’s facebook page is over 300K and grows at the rate of around 4K a day. A fellow Jefferson Conservative pointed out to me that their membership appears to skew upward in age. This is a “good thing” (for the Tea Party) because the “baby boomer” demographic “shows up”, “has money”, and “they vote”. It is well funded (I advised the Coffee Party leadership from the beginning we needed money… suggesting Starbucks. That’s when I came to understand their view of American Corporations.), has an outstanding website, is incredibly organized, and it’s people (you just can’t stress this often enough) “show up”. They also meet to confirm one another’s values; however, the rhetoric is different. They focus on “What’s next”. They don’t have to discuss what they want or vote on what they believe in: they know.

An interesting note: The Coffee Party obsesses on the Tea Party spending countless energy insulting, disparaging, and belittling their fellow Americans who choose to join a different group. In Contrast, I have never seen the Tea Party mention even the existence of the Coffee Party. I write that off to passion: the Tea Party doesn’t have time to gossip because it is focusing on the “business of fixing our Government” (and I think both sides agree our Government is “broken” at the moment.)

The Tea Party makes no pretensions about what it is: a group that believes in Core Values of:

* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets

I initially avoided the Tea Party because I was afraid they also would push the socially divisive issues that (as a Libertarian) I avoid or disagree with. I have found that while many of the Tea Party membership hold opinions with which I disagree, as a group they are more interested in their core values. I will repeat (because Progressives love to define the Tea Party on the few “nuts” and “fruitcakes” within its membership), the Tea Party Rallies I attended consisted of Patriotic Americans concerned about our Country, it’s future, and their fellow citizens. I stood in the crowd with my neighbors, small business folks, families, people not ashamed to sing the National Anthem or waive the American Flag.

While I don’t sign up to everything either group has to say, I find the Tea Party Patriots more closely align with my personal beliefs and comfort level. Their core values are my core values. I like to be in the presence of folks not afraid to wave the flag!

Progressives are really a fractured lot because of competing agendas. That’s why “One Nation” (the subject of the news article) is interesting, With ‘One Nation,’ liberal groups aim to match tea party’s energy, influence To quote from the article:

Liberal leaders see “much of the progressive agenda at risk in this election,” said Paul Starr, a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and co-editor of the American Prospect, a liberal magazine.

The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed “One Nation,” will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grassroots two years ago.

At least these guys are honest. They are progressives. They are organizing progressive groups. They hope to provide the left’s real answer to the Tea Party. I welcome this group because they will help folks such as myself flush out and identify clearly Progressive candidates… so I may devote my time, talent, and resources to defeating them. Progressives are a bit too close to Socialists for my tastes. I like to “think for myself” and make my own decisions in my private live. Those who like others to think for them should start a commune and let others decide. I will be interested in who signs up to “One Nation” because it will “out” groups trying to pass for something other than Progressive. If you wonder why “Progressives” scare me, just venture on down to Venezuela and see what happens when the Government decides to suspend the Constitution and Nationalize businesses. I’ve spent time with Progressives. I’ve heard them quote Marx and Engels, Condemn American Corporations, and talk casually of Nationalization. Frankly,they “scare the hell” out of me.

Like most Libertarians, I’m an independent voter. I guess I’m a bit like Diogenes strolling around with my lamp in the daylight, “…looking for an honest man.” I’m finding there are very few… so I am forced to compromise. Ive had quite a few folks “throw a stone or two” at me because of my curiosity. I will follow “One Nation” and the “Tea Party” because they help me identify the extremes that I avoid. I will not vote for a Progressive or a (using the internationally recognized Bill Golden left – America – right model) left wing or right winger. (For the record, I disagree with Bill’s much too kind definition of a Progressive… but that’s a different conversation.)

I’m looking for folks near the middle from either Party. Blue Dog Democrats and RINO’s are my “target population”.  I won’t dismiss a Libertarian candidate; however, I won’t “waste my vote” on a candidate with little chance of winning (and Libertarians just don’t do well in elections…  at least…  yet).   Both groups tend to be (IMHO) fiscal conservatives with moderate views of the socially divisive issues that I avoid. When evaluating a candidate, I will continue to use their fidelity to the Constitution and it’s twenty-seven amendments, their record (I found voting for folks without a record is a mistake… that “past performance” thing matters), their promises (I won’t believe any of them; however, promises identify their constituency), and whether or not they have great hair (because we all know that the “BEST” president’s had great hair… ok… I’m kidding on this one).

I like candidates from the business community, CEOs, venture capitalists, folks who know what it means to manage to budget, raise capital, and meet payroll. The United States Government is perhaps the biggest “business” in the world. I believe people who have demonstrated success ad managing a business should run our Government like a business.

I don’t care if a candidate is a man or a woman; black, brown, or white; straight or gay, or whatever other than in a pragmatic sense (in the context of its impact on their ability to win). I won’t vote for someone because they are “whatever”; however, I won’t limit America’s talent pool to some arbitrary subset that perhaps disenfranchises the next Kennedy or Reagen (or Jefferson).

As I have said many times, I ‘blew’ my last vote on Obama. He was an untested candidate with no real record, little regard for the Constitution, and a lot of ideas I wish I had listened to a bit more closely. I got the Government I deserve. I hope to fix that next time. While leaning right a bit this time (I like to think of it as “tacking” in the nautical sense to get the ship of state back on course), I will be looking towards the center on either side. I will be looking at third party candidates based upon their constituency, financing and ability to win (I don’t throw my vote away. It’s just too precious). I will be looking for leadership at all levels who can lead us out of this mess and back to a smaller, more fiscally conservative Government that stays out of our private affairs.

It’s been documented many places that regardless of the efforts of groups such as the Tea Party and One Nation, Independent voters will provide the “swing vote” that will put the next couple of rounds of elected officials in office. I’m ready to take my “best swing”… but haven’t decided what to “swing at” at the moment.

Posted in Independents | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off