Comment

Comments and observations on social and political trends and events.
Showing posts with label Presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential election. Show all posts

Thursday, January 7, 2021

I Hate Federal Commissions, But Americans Need One To Look Into The 2020 Election – JONATHAN TURLEY

I Hate Federal Commissions, But Americans Need One To Look Into The 2020 Election – JONATHAN TURLEY

One of the people I follow is Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. I first heard about Turley when he testified during the Trump impeachment hearings. Although Turley is a Republican he stated during the hearing that he did not vote for Trump in 2016. He also has frequently criticized Trump in his blog. From reading his blog posts I've concluded that he tries to be objective.

In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 Trump rally in which some of his supporters stormed the Capitol Turley posted his call for a federal commission to look into the 2020 election. I've extracted several key quotes below.

I hate federal commissions. I have always hated federal commissions. Federal commissions are Washington’s way of managing scandals. They work like placebos for political fevers, convincing voters that answers and change are on the way. That is why it is so difficult for me to utter these words: We need a federal election commission. Not the one proposed by some Senate Republicans. And not like past placebo commissions. An honest-to-God, no-holds-barred federal commission to look into the 2020 presidential election.

          ... 

There are three reasons why the need for a real commission is needed:

►First, and most important, this was an unprecedented election in the reliance of mail-in voting and the use of new voting systems and procedures. We need to review how that worked down to the smallest precincts and hamlets.

►Second, possibly tens of millions of voters believe that this election was rigged and stolen. I am not one of them. However, the integrity of our elections depends on the faith of the electorate.

Roughly 40% of that electorate have lingering doubts about whether their votes actually matter. Most of the cases challenging the election were not decided on the merits. Indeed, it seems they haven’t even been allowed for discovery. Instead, they were largely dismissed on jurisdictional or standing groups or under the “laches” doctrine that they were brought too late. Those allegations need to be conclusively proven or disproven in the interests of the country.

►Third, there were problems. There was not proof of systemic fraud or irregularities, but there were problems of uncounted votes, loss of key custodial information and key differences in the rules governing voting and tabulations.

We have spent billions to achieve greater security and reliability after prior election controversies. Indeed, we had a prior election commission that failed to achieve those fundamental goals.

...

The stakes are too high to allow even a dust particle to tip the difference on the ultimate findings. The dust-free option requires a dependent, not independent, commission. Otherwise, the public will be the loser.

So, let’s have a commission, but let’s make it a real one.


Turley admits that if a commission is appointed (which I find highly unlikely) it will take years to complete its work. Therefore it won't satisfy those who question the validity of the 2020 election. I agree with Turley's reasons for investigating the current voting procedures, especially the mail-in ballots and the Dominion voting machines. If we, the voting public, are to trust that our vote truly counts we need to believe that our vote is being counted.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Presidential Election: Summarized in Three Lines

Over this interminably long election process when asked what I think about the candidates I've come up with three lines that summarize how I view Trump and Clinton.

He's crass. She's corrupt.

He lies because he likes to. She lies because she has to.

He is temperamentally unfit to be president. She is ethically unfit to be president.

Great choices!

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

The Day After

No, I’m not referring to the post-apocalyptic ABC miniseries from 1983. I’m referring to another disaster, also man-made: the McCain campaign. The American Thinker has a good analysis titled Why McCain Lost (posted November 5, 2008) of why the McCain campaign imploded. The key point is that McCain is a Reagan Democrat who wanted to play the nice moderate. However he hamstrung himself by not choosing not to challenge Obama on a number of issues. And he lacks as much understanding of economics as Obama so McCain was unable to question Obama’s economic “plan” (which essentially is a collection of spending programs).

You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?

It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.


It’s tough to position yourself a fundamentally different from your opponent, especially on economics, when you’re really not. National security was the major difference that McCain could have tried to capitalize on but the recent economic troubles pushed security off the electorate’s radar of concerns.

Speaking of the economy here is a prediction. If the economy is still in the doldrums (or, more likely, it’s in even worse shape) at the end of his first term the Obamacrats (Obama + the Democrats) will argue that they need another term to fix all of the abuses of Bush’s eight years. In a way they’d be right but for the wrong reasons. Bush was far from an advocate of the free market. One of my earlier posts describes the work of the Fraser Institute which has devised a measure of economic freedom. This index dropped during the Bush era, thus indicating that Bush didn’t drastically deregulate the economy. Of course, that won’t matter to the Obamacrats. To borrow the phrase of one of their heroes, the facts about Bush’s economic legacy are an inconvenient truth.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Some (nearly) final thoughts on the election

I posted this on Michael Prescott's blog under the post titled "So who is going to win this thing?" Prescott has some interesting thoughts on the election.

I too have no idea how the election is going to turn out. I’m not convinced the constant mantra of the polls about an inevitable Obama victory is necessarily true. If McCain does win it will be a testament to his dogged determination to have overcome the mainstream media’s unabashed lack of objectivity, their obvious favoritism for Obama and palpable hatred of Palin. I agree that Obama has done a wonderful job of sounding centrist while in reality he is fairly leftist, if you look at his voting record and his plan for what he would do if elected. I also believe the media harps on the polls to convince potential voters of the near hopelessness of the McCain campaign and the inevitability of an Obama election so that the polls become a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I haven’t studied the methodology of all of the polls I’ve noticed that the fine print on some CNN polls admits that they contacted, say, 40% Democrats and only 30% Republicans, thus building in an almost automatic bias for Obama.

What I think is interesting about all of this is the heavy influence of postmodernism, particularly on the Left and in the media. By that I mean the idea that there is no objective truth and therefore it’s acceptable to not strive for objectivity because it is a hopeless venture. Therefore it is OK to omit inconvenient facts, to heavily favor Obama over McCain in your reporting, and to claim the election is a fiat accompli thanks to the polls.

Plus the Left is wedded to egalitarianism, not in terms of political egalitarianism in which all of us have equal rights but in terms of economic egalitarianism in terms of equal economic outcome regardless of one’s merits and work ethic. I believe this is the fundamental premise behind Obama’s “spreading the wealth” comment when talking to Joe the plumber. There are a lot of problems philosophically and morally with economic egalitarianism which I can’t/won’t get into here.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The McCain Puzzle

I'm puzzled why McCain doesn't harp on Obama's role in this financial mess: how Obama opposed attempts to impose oversight and controls on Fannie Mar and Freddie Mac, how Obama received so much in campaign contributions from these organizations and how he hired a former top dog to help search for a VP running mate. The MSM certainly isn't going to run these stories (although you can bet if McCain had these ties that's all you'd hear about).

I don't know if McCain feels this is beneath him, if he thinks this would come back to bite him, he is holding this as a trump card to be played at an appropriate time or if his campaign strategists are overlooking this. Wish I knew!

Meanwhile Obama is running ads tying McCain to lobbyists.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Financial Meltdown: Bush's Legacy ... or Clinton's?

While McCain lays the blame for the recent financial woes on greed and Obama points at Bush's 8 years as the cause Investor's Business Daily has an interesting article titled The Real Culprits In This Meltdown. Check it out.

Also recommended, http://www.gregransom.com/prestopundit/ for interesting commentary from a Hayekian viewpoint and for many posts on the Palin impaling by the media.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

McCain and Obama: Principle versus Personality?

It seems that we’re going to be faced with a choice between principle and personality. By that I mean McCain’s up front theme is the importance of principles. I’m not talking about his particular positions on, say, global warming or what to do about high oil prices (with which most libertarians and Objectivists would disagree) I’m talking about his advocacy to adhere to broader principles of integrity, courage, and honesty. True, he also maintains the importance of committing to something larger than oneself, which drives Objectivists and many libertarians nuts. I’m not dismissing these disagreements with McCain’s principles and how this can affect his positions on things. What is clear through all of this is his profound love of this country.

Meanwhile it seems that Obama is mightily impressed with himself as witnessed by the pompous stage setting for his acceptance speech and his behavior. Obama has done a good job of marketing himself up to this point as an agent of change while touting the same tired message that the government is the cure-all for the “ills” of the market. He has also done a good job (with the media as accomplices) distancing himself from his father’s socialist background (see www.gregransom.com/prestopundit.), his choices in associates (such as Bill Ayer, Reverend Wright, etc.), and his voting record (See www.ontheissues.org.). Obama has also managed to make his strong liberal views sound downright centrist without getting into specifics. It’s almost as though he is speaking on two levels with his vague generalities. To people who know the depth of Obama’s liberalism they hear the code loud and clear. To people who aren’t ideologues they are swayed by his personality, delivery and his noble sounding generalities.

For me with the looming threats of Iran, North Korea and now Russia in addition to the continuing menace of terrorism I’d rather put a man like McCain in office than Obama. The later feels he can deal with our opponents by talking to them, like he’s Oprah interviewing a guest on her show. And, in looking at the voting records of McCain and Obama it’s obvious that McCain, despite his warts, votes much more consistently to protect our rights than Obama has. Again, see www.ontheissues.org for a side-by-side comparison of their voting records.

So we ultimately will have a choice between McCain who believes we should serve our country in order to protect and improve it versus Obama who wants us to sacrifice ourselves to everyone else, both foreign and domestic. On the surface it appears there is no fundamental difference between the two. McCain asks us to serve our country while Obama wants us to serve others in general. I think buried in this is a key distinction. McCain is not denying that we have a right to be happy or to pursue happiness. (At least I haven’t found any quotes to that affect.) I think he believes we need to put the interests of the U.S. first because protecting this framework will ensure our freedom and our ability to pursue our values. I’ll admit that maybe this is wishful thinking and might be too generous but I think his voting record supports what I’m saying. (I am starting to read his Worth Fighting For to see if my theory is correct or not.) I have provided some lengthy quotes below rather disrupt the flow of this post.

On the other hand I’m confident that deep down Obama does indeed want to change us … into another more consistent welfare-state with a heavily government regulated market that is more in line with the “enlightened” European-model where we can’t drive our SUVs, have to turn down our thermostats and can’t eat as much. (This is paraphrasing a quote from him.) Kind of intrusive, isn’t it? I think he is ultimately uncomfortable with and ashamed of the self-interest that drives us. It doesn’t take much digging to find the collectivist intellectual influences in Obama’s life that would explain his antipathy to self-interest.

----------------------------------------

As mentioned above here are some quotes from McCain to illustrate his general themes.

From his book Character is Destiny,

It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.

From Faith of My Fathers,

Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles. No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it. This is the faith that my commanders affirmed, that my brothers-in-arms encouraged my allegiance to… It was my father and grandfather's faith. A filthy, broken man, all I had left of my dignity was the faith of my fathers. It was enough".

From The New York Times July 13, 2008 interview. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin When asked what kind of conservative he is, a Goldwater, Reagan or G. W. Bush conservative McCain replied:

A Teddy Roosevelt conservative, I think. He’s probably my major role model, we could go back to Lincoln, of course. In the 20th century Teddy Roosevelt. I think Teddy Roosevelt he had a great vision of America’s role in the 20th Century. He was a great environmentalist. He loved the country. He is the person who brought the government into a more modern – into the 20th century as well.

I believe less governance is best governance and that government should not do what the free enterprise and private enterprise and individual entrepreneurship and ¬¬ the states can do. But I also believe there is a role for government. If there is abuses, TR was the first guy to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act against the quote trusts that were controlling the economy of America. Because I believe his quote was unfettered capitalism leads to corruption. So there certainly is a role for government but I want to keep that role minimal. And I want to keep it in the areas where only governments can perform those functions.

Government should take care of those in America who can’t care for themselves. That’s a role of government. It’s not that I’m for no government. It’s that I’m for government carrying out those responsibilities that otherwise can’t be exercised by individuals and the states -- that’s the founding principles of our country -- and at the same time recognizing there’s a role for our government and society to care for those who can’t care for themselves, to make sure there are not abuses of individual rights as well as the rights of groups of people and to defend our nation. And National Security is obviously No. 1.

From The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103032_4.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Enter public life determined to tell the truth; to put problem-solving ahead of partisanship; to defend the public interest against the special interests; to risk your personal ambitions for the sake of the country and the ideals that make her great. Keep your promise to America, and you will keep your honor. You will know a happiness far more sublime than pleasure.

From Reason magazine, “Be Afraid of President McCain, The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick” by Matt Welch, April 2007. The quote below picks up at the point during McCain’s captivity in North Vietnam when he had his personal epiphany. http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

After two weeks of particularly severe beatings in 1968, he recorded a forced confession—though not before half-heartedly attempting suicide—and then plunged into inconsolable, shame-wracked despair. “They were the worst two weeks of my life,” he recalled. What pulled him back from the brink was not the stubborn individuality that had sustained him through the years but the selfless encouragement of his fellow prisoners, who told him he did the best he could even while giving him strength to do better next time. “I discovered in prison that faith in myself alone, separate from other, more important allegiances, was ultimately no match for the cruelty that human beings could devise,” he wrote. “It is, perhaps, the most important lesson I have ever learned.”

Submerging and channeling his individuality into the “greater cause” of American patriotism became McCain’s reason for living. “I resolved that when I regained my freedom,” he wrote in Faith of My Fathers, “I would seize opportunities to spend what remained of my life in more important pursuits.”

“I have learned the truth,” he writes in Faith of My Fathers. “There are greater pursuits than self-seeking.…Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself.”

That “something” is the “last, best hope of humanity,” the “advocate for all who believed in the Rights of Man,” the “city on a hill” once dreamed by Puritan pilgrim John Winthrop (whom McCain celebrates in Character Is Destiny). Any thing or person perceived as tarnishing that city’s luster has a sworn enemy in the Arizona senator. “Our greatness,” he writes in Worth the Fighting For, “depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions, institutions that should transcend all sectarian, regional, and commercial conflicts to fortify the public’s allegiance to the national community.”