Courage Makes A Majority

Delegate Math 101

After Daily Kos's DHinMI's excellent diary yesterday on the delegate count to date and the unlikeliness that either candidate can win the nomination through pledged delegates, I thought I would take a closer look at the actual numbers as they stand now.

Based on the analysis below (albeit on the back of an envelope), I think Obama will have a tall order because he will need about 319 of the 796 superdelegates to win the nomination. It is certainly attainable, but not necessarily a given. 

The work I did here tries to take a look at past primaries to predict the delegate counts of the future. I would encourage supporters of either candidate to please critique my assumptions and let me know your thoughts. My profession is in the area of financial analysis, so I try to take some of the lessons in my 15 years or professional experience and apply them here.

State	Total	BO	% Total	HC	% Total	JE	% Total
Iowa	45	16	36%	15	33%	14	31%
New Hampshire	22	9	41%	9	41%	4	18%
Nevada	25	13	52%	12	48%	0	0%
South Carolina	45	25	56%	12	27%	8	18%
Early States	137	63		48		26

It is important to note the John Edwards 26 delegate total. It will become a factor, not a determining factor, but a factor nonetheless. So on to Super Tuesday.

State	Total	BO	% Total	HC	% Total
Alabama	52	29	56%	23	44%
Alaska	13	9	69%	4	31%
America Somoa	3	1	33%	2	67%
Arizona	56	25	45%	31	55%
Arkansas	35	8	23%	27	77%
California	370	163	44%	207	56%
Colorado	55	37	67%	18	33%
Connecticut	48	26	54%	22	46%
Delaware	15	9	60%	6	40%
Georgia	87	60	69%	27	31%
Idaho	18	15	83%	3	17%
Illinois	153	101	66%	52	34%
Kansas	32	23	72%	9	28%
Massachusetts	93	37	40%	56	60%
Minnesota	72	48	67%	24	33%
Missouri	72	36	50%	36	50%
New Jersey	107	48	45%	59	55%
New Mexico	26	13	50%	13	50%
New York	232	95	41%	137	59%
North Dakota	13	8	62%	5	38%
Oklahoma	38	14	37%	24	63%
Tennessee	68	29	43%	39	57%
Utah	23	13	57%	10	43%
Super Tuesday	1681	847		834
Totals to Date	1818	910		882

I have included the % totals to help me with allocating the remaining pledged delegates. First, let's look at the remaining contests that will determine the who receives the remaining 1435 pledged delegates. The way I see it they will break this way:

Barack Obama: Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, DC, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota.

Hillary Clinton: Dems Abroad, Virgin Islands, Ohio, Texas, Pennslyvania, Guam, Puerto Rico.

Tie: Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky.

OK, I know that most delegates are determined by congressional district with the remainder divided up based on statewide vote. If I were to do it accurately, I would look at each CD, but I think the results to date, especially on Super Tuesday give an idea of how things will break.

For the most part Hillary is favored in big states, Ohio, Texas and Pennslvania. If you look at California, New Jersey and Tennesee (I threw out New York because it is her home state). The delegate split was 55%/45%, so that is what I will use in HC states.

On the other hand, Barack Obama was a little more succesful in states he won, especially caucus states (again I ignore the home state, Illinois). For Obama states, I went with a 65%/35% split. Needless to say, Tie states are split 50%/50%. So this is what the remaining primaries look like:

State	Total	BO	# Needed	HC	# Needed	Favored
Dems Abroad	7	3	1112	4	1139	HC
Louisiana	56	36	1076	20	1119	BO
Nebraska	24	16	1060	8	1111	BO
Washington	78	51	1009	27	1084	BO
Virgin Islands	3	1	1008	2	1082	HC
Maine	24	12	996	12	1070	Tie
D.C.	15	10	986	5	1065	BO
Maryland	70	46	940	24	1041	BO
Virginia	83	54	886	29	1012	BO
Hawaii	20	13	873	7	1005	BO
Wisconsin	74	48	825	26	979	BO
Ohio	141	61	764	80	899	HC
Rhode Island	21	11	753	10	889	Tie
Texas	193	83	670	110	779	HC
Vermont	15	8	662	7	772	Tie
Wyoming	12	8	654	4	768	BO
Mississippi	33	21	633	12	756	BO
Pennsylvania	158	68	565	90	666	HC
Guam	4	2	563	2	664	HC
Indiana	72	47	516	25	639	BO
North Carolina	115	75	441	40	599	BO
West Virginia	28	18	423	10	589	BO
Kentucky	51	26	397	25	564	Tie
Oregon	52	34	363	18	546	BO
Montana	16	10	353	6	540	BO
South Dakota	15	10	343	5	535	BO
Puerto Rico	55	24	319	31	504	HC
Total to be Awarded	1435	796		639
Estimated Pledged Dels	3253	1706		1521

That means Obama needs 319 Superdelegates (40% of the 796) to hit the magic 2025 for the nomination, on the flipside Clinton needs 504 Superdelegates (63%). Notice the descrepancy if you add the 2 percentages, it equals 103%. That's because of the 26 pledged delgates that Edwards holds. Which ever candidate gets those delegates will have three precentage points shaved of his/her needed superdelegate total.

I think the biggest thing I take from this back of the envelope estimate is the importance of the big states to Clinton. If she doesn't get Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania (or even if its a tie). The Math changes dramatically for Obama. A tie in any one of those states, reduces his needed superdelegate total 25-30 delegates. If he wins one of those states, he picks up 55-60 pledges delegates that plus an Edwards endorsement with his 26 delegates moves his superdelegate requirement to a very attainable 233-238 (or about 30%). If he picks up two of those states and it is effectively game over. Of course, the Michigan/Florida request by the Clinton camp because even more important, but that is a subject for another diary. So have at it, let me know where I messed up. Thanks.

It is like an addiction

Primary season has really distracted me.  I am pretty energized by the idea of a new president and a new course for this country.  But I have to admit, it is beginning to border on obsession.  Last night I spent an hour on a spread sheet doing "delegate math."  In the end, I keep coming to the same answer, there is no way this will be decided without pledged delegates.    Now I am all for letting the process work itself out, but the fact that these two very qualified candidates continue to take about half of the support of those voting leaves us with the very real possibility that some sort of deal has to be worked out.  Who know what it will be, but I do know this,  I can't spend a couple hours each night lurking around all the progressive/liberal/democratic blogs for the next 5 months until the convention.   It will kill me.

Hopefully after Ohio and Texas on March 4th, the Obama and Clinton campaigns will sit down and figure this out, because if we wait until the August convention, we will be behind the eight ball.  That would leave two months to campaign for president.    I will do a delegate math post later, but in the end Obama has a slight advantage, because he should have about 100-200 delegate lead looking at the pledged delegates only when the primaries are over.  It will still require him to get about 300 super delgates to seal the nomination.  But the whole Michigan Florida thing makes this even more suspect.

At the end of the day, the two candidates, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and few others like Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Chris Dodd need to work out a suggestion to who should be the candidate.  My fear is Obama is the bigger person in all of the this, and steps aside even though he will have more pledged delegates (regardless of Michigan and Florida).   Of course, they could always be the out of leftfield outcome that they agree to a different candidate...like I don't know...maybe, Al Gore?!?!  Wouldn't that be interesting!  I just hope for my sake, they get this overwith in March.

The Culture of Death

I saw this the other day, and it made my heart skip a beat.   Apparently, in Iran, two sisters are to be stoned to death for "adultery".   I put adultery in quotes because the husband of one of the women produced a video tape of his wife talking to other men.  Not a sex tape or a some lude act, but rather she was in the company of other men.  I imagine her sister was with her since she is set to be executed with her.

Reading the short article I see that she was already tried once for the crime and found guilty of illegal relations and received 99 lashes.  So she was convicted once, whipped 99 times, but that wasn't good enough for the savages (yes I called them savages because I can't think of another more fitting term).   Sister got 99 as well. 

After I read the article, I thought thank God that I don't live in a country that 1) considers adultery a criminal violation, 2) can sentence people to be whipped or stoned and 3) prohibits being tried for the same crime twice.  Then I thought, where is the outrage and news coverage (the article was from a UK paper).  Remember the furor around Michael Fay, the kid in Singapore in 1994 that was sentenced to 4 months in jail and six strokes of the cane for spraying graffiti on cars.  He ended up getting 4 strokes, but the coverage was massive.  Here, these women have been whipped nearly 100 times and now will be put to death by people throwing rocks at them until they stop breathing.

Then I realize that as a country, where do we have a leg to stand on.  Nevermind our stance on torture (we use it but say we don't) and the bogus legal status of "enemy combatants" that allow our government to hold people indefinitely without charges, denying the right to a writ of habeas corpus.  I am talking about the Death Penalty.  We, as a country still allow our own savage behavior with state sanctioned killing.  It is sick and quite frankly disappointing that we continue to allow our country to be held to the standard of the lowest common denominator.  Thoughts like, "well most of the country is supportive of the death penalty and the Bible does say an "Eye for an Eye'."

It is all bullshit.  If we want to claim the mantle of the moral compass of the world, or the defender of human rights and dignity, we need to challenge ourselves to be better than the savage thoughts of the American Pysche.  I know too many descent people that are pro-death penalty.  The idea of revenge is powerful, but we can't continue to call murder a crime then use it as a tool for punishment. 

I always say to someone who is pro-death penalty, "do you think we ever put an innocent person to death?"  Given the consistent news of exonerated death row inmates, the answer is always yes.  Then I follow with the hypothetical, "what if the person you loved the most was that innocent person, would you still find the death penatly acceptable?"  Funny, but I never get an answer to the question.

Update:  Not that this is a story about executions, but a US Citizen (a woman) was arrested, strip searched, jailed, and forced to sign a confession for sitting with a male colleague in Starbucks in Saudi Arabia.  That made the US News.

Victory!!

I just got off the phone with my Mom.  She will cast her vote (and so will my father) for Barack Obama!!

That calls for a little Johnny Drama Victory Call:

YES WE CAN!

Enough said

The Question of Electability

I will try to keep this short and sweet.  I assert that Barack Obama is so much more electable that Hillary Clinton based on a few items.

First, as I outlined in my post a couple of days ago, the war in Iraq is a key issue.  If Hillary is our candidate, she is ineffective in trying to differentiate her position from the Republican candidate.  She voted for the war.  She can not criticize anyone on the issue.  Instead we will be treated to her painful 20 minute attempt to rationalize her vote, say why whe would do it differently if she knew then what she knew know, etc.  The Iraq War needs to be a key point in this election, and Hillary eliminates that possibility.

Second, polling shows just how divisive a figure she is.  Her negative rating is 51% and whopping 47% say the would cast a vote against her (saying that a primary driver of 1 of every 2 voters for the republican candidate would be to vote against Hilary).  Obama's negatives are lower 45%, and even more importantly, his vote against percentage is only 36% or 11% lower than Hillary.  He is not the polarizing figure she is. 

Third, he is a movement candidate, bring new voters to the process that haven't been seen before.  Voters that will likely disappear if he is not at the top of the ticket.  Look at Iowa.  Almost 25% of the voters participating in the caucus were under 30.  1 in 4 voters!  Barack Obama took nearly 60% of that vote.  Young voter participation is doubling, in large part, to Obama's appeal to that demographic.   In New Hampshire, nearly 20% of the voters were under 30 and again Obama took the majority of them.  Nevada: 13% of the vote. 60% for Obama. South Carolina: 15% of the vote.  65% for Obama.  These numbers are astounding and figure to tilt even more towards Obama as likely nominee John McCain is so far removed from the age group (he is over 70 years old), that increasing the participation of this demographic is GREAT news for the democrats.   Obama is the only candidate that brings these voters out.

Fourth, he's a map changer.  Again look at South Carolina, a state that is normally not considered a target for the Democratic nominee.  Barack Obama garnered more votes (295,000) than the top 2 GOP candidates combined  (276,000).   Total Democratic turnout (530,000) was well above GOP turnout (430,000), putting this state in play for the election.  Turnout was equally impressive in Iowa and New Hampshire, both swing states for the election.  Race is not an issue as Obama won the whitest state in the union, Iowa (97% white). 

Other states like Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, all normal locks for the GOP, come into play, and only into play if Obama is the nominee.  At the same time, democratic stalwarts like New York, California, Illinois, Massachussettes and New Jersey still stay firmly in the Dem's column.  And while McCain is trying to appeal to social conservatives in the south, a key voting bloc that he struggles to attract.  Obama can go on the offensive in other key battleground states like Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Again, all this doesn't happen with Hillary as the candidate.

So there you have it, 4 solid reasons why Barack is more electable than Hillary come November.

Dear Mom and Dad

On Tuesday, February 5th, the two of you will be going to the polls in Southern California to vote for your choice to be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States. I am writing this open letter to you to sway your decision, in hopes that you will cast that vote for Barack Obama.

I am doing in this in an open format (not only on my blog but also on the Daily Kos) so, in case anyone else wants to help my cause, they can jump in as well. In order to effectively employ others in my cause it is helpful to explain to them who you are.

My father is the youngest of five children and was born in Greece many moons ago. He came to this country in the early 1950's, leaving behind a war-torn Europe, for his version of the American Dream. He brought with him everything he had, which wasn't much. He ultimately settled in Chicago, and after learning the language and saving his money, embarked on his life as an entrepeneur. After owning several different businesses through his life, he is now retired and living in Southern California.

My mother is a first generation American, born to Greek immigrants on the South Side of Chicago. She is the fourth of five children and was involved in a family business until she met my dad and married him in 1970. Together they worked together, and somehow had the time to have and raise me. When it was time to sell their business and move their home to warmer climes, they took their Chicago identification with them, being consistent Democratic voters in a very republican area of California.

My mother is pretty sure she is voting for Hillary Clinton and my dad has said he will vote for whomever she chooses. So the importance of this letter is now twofold, because I want to convince the both of them to vote for Barack Obama. Readers, please leave your thoughts in the comments and I welcome both pro-Hillary and Pro-Barack comments, just keep it clean, because after all, my parents will be reading this.

Mom and Dad, this is election is different than most. The fact that we are choosing a president from a slate of candidates that doesn't not include a sitting president or a former/sitting Vice President doesn't happen very often. Then the fact that Democratic nominee will be either a woman or an African American is truly historical.

We are faced with a moment in our history seen before: an unpopular war, a failing economy, a government not interested in protecting our civil liberties, and a country divided by ideologies. I assert that to pick a candidate we must go beyond the policies they support.

Sure the are some significant differences in where they stand: mandates for universal healthcare, the freezing of interest rates for five years, and talking to enemy foreign government quickly come to mind.

Look I understand that Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate. She is fabulous with policy. She is bright and well spoken. She is tested and experienced. She is a committed civil servant who is a credit to our party and our country. In any other election, she would be a sound choice for President of the United States, and if she does win this nomination, I will fight and vote for her in the general election. Hillary Clinton is a good leader.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is an exceptional leader. And it's leadership that is key to this election. Barack Obama is everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Barack Obama is the type of leader that makes the impossible seem possible. Critics will call it all form and no substance. I call it inspiration.

Since Ted Kennedy's endorsement, there have been comparisons of Barack Obama to Jack Kennedy. Again, critics are quick to point out that Obama is no Jack Kennedy, and its true. At this point in his career, Barack hasn't accomplished enough to be considered his peer. But the comparison is appropriate for the two simple reasons.

First, both men are visionaries; setting up large ideas for the country to chase. It is one of the biggest criticisms of Obama from Hillary supporters that he is an orator with no plan to actually deliver the ideas he sets forth and promises. But back when Jack Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon, he had no idea of how to deliver it. He knew nothing about rockerty or space travel. He could only ask that the collective consciousness of American put their mind to the challenge. These leads me to the second point.

Both men are requiring the citizens of the country step forward and take ownership of our progress. One of the most well know quotes of the presidency sets the stage for what I believe Barack Obama embodies to today:

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."- John F. Kennedy

"Don’t tell me we can’t change. Yes we can change. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can seize our future." - Barack Obama

"We" need make change together.  Not expect change from Washington, but rather bring change to country. Those words from after the South Carolina primary still ring in my ears.

Now, I admit I am a sucker for a great speech. But I am reminded of my own time in college. In the leadership roles I held during that time, the organizations I was a part of always had the most progress when all of the members took ownership of the cause. It was through the empowerment of others that we met the challenges of the day. That is the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton. I would walk through a wall for Barack Obama, while I have no such feelings for Hillary Clinton.

So Mom and Dad, the choice is one of leadership style. The methodical, predictable, top-down approach of Hillary Clinton or the inspirational, transformational, empowerment approach of Barack Obama.

I hope this helps bring you the clarity need to make your final decision. Take a risk and aim high, the country can use a new path, a new leadership, a new vision for the future. We can do it. YES WE CAN!

Thoughts on the debate

Tonight's debate was a great tribute to both candidates. Their civility towards each other and their willingness to discuss the issues instead of attack each other was a win for both of them.  I walk away from the debate feeling more comfortable about the prospects of the presidency should Hillary win the nominations. 

However, I really, truly believe, that, given his performance tonight, Barack Obama is the best candidate for President.  There are two reasons for that.  First, the easy one: Iraq.  Barack made a very compelling point on the issue of Iraq.  He is the best candidate to contrast the position versus the Republican candidate, most likely John McCain.  Look at what Obama says after Wolf Blitzer asks him about Iraq.

"It was not just a problem of execution.  I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.  And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security."

[Emphasis mine]

Bingo.  A large majority of American's believe that war was a mistake and want out.  Barack Obama can stand there at the podium and say "I was against this war from the beginning, even when it wasn't politically safe to say so".  Hillary can not.  Furthermore, everytime she is asked about that vote, she has to go into this long winded explanation of why she wasn't wrong to vote for it even though now she would be against it.  Like this.

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond. Senator Clinton, you always say, if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York, in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten frontlines in the war against terror, that just, you know, just struck me so forcefully.

We have so many problems that we are going to have to untangle. And it will take everyone -- it will take a tremendous amount of effort.

But the one thing I'm convinced of is that, if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together an effective strategy to go after the terrorists -- because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore at our peril -- then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that's what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

Well Hillary, was it a mistake or not?  If Hillary is our nominee, the war becomes a NON-issue for this election.  That is not good for the public discourse or the election.  On this issue alone, it is enough to make me choose Obama.  However, let me go to a different point.  One that was more subtle the mortgage crisis answer.  Here is what Hillary is proposing.

"I think it's imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years."

On the surface, it is a very intriguing and probably popular policy suggestion.  But Obama digs a little deeper into the issue on his response.

"On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It's a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.  I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.

I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.  So, some of the people that we want to protect could end up being hurt by such a plan."

I hadn't thought about it that way, but he is right.  By freezing current ARMs for the next five years, banks will increase the cost of new loans to cover the lost interest on the frozen ARMs.  That hurts new buyers.  Come to think of it, since the great majority of mortgages are movable.  If you sell your house and by a new one, you end up paying more on the new mortgage than you would have had the ARM rates not been frozen.  As Barack says, this ends up hurting some of the people you are trying to protect.

That's all for now.  YES WE CAN!

Redefining My Mission

Six months...actually almost seven months since my last post.  Actually 204 days to be exact.  That is an awful long time to be away.  A lot has happened in those days since I last made a public statement on our political culture.  In a way, I sit here tonight thinking about the all the developments in the primary season, and the fact that we are less than a year away from a new president (HURRAY!) and try to put into perspective as to why I have stopped writing.    After all , my mission has always been about bring a change in leadership in our government.  With that objective clearly in reach (although clearly not through my doing), you would think my efforts would pick up, not disappear from the blogoshpere. 

Some of the explanation lies firmly in the utter exhaustion I feel from all of the responsibilities I have as a husband, father of two little ones, friend, employee and supervisor to 16 people.  Yep life is busy, and blogging is certainly my hobby, not my profession.  But the "life happens" explanation is only part of the story.  I still have a tremendous passion for progressive politics, but in a way, I felt my writing had become trite, and a little bit whiny.  I certainly felt my points were valid, but I found no joy in making them anymore.  George Bush got to be such a easy target, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.  The new Demcratic leadership in Washington did little to inspire me, and really, everything seemed like business as usual.  In short, I lost my muse.

So I am here to today to try to find my muse, and I believe I may have found my spark.  In a way, I always felt that my purpose in life is to make a difference for somebody, anybody. Just one person at a time.  I don't have to be famous, or a politician to do this.  I just have to care and educate.  In a way, I feel that I missed my calling in life as an educator.  Don't get me wrong, I am really good at my career in finance, and I do fairly well in comparison to most people.  But the biggest joys I get from my work is the time I spend developing the employees that work for me.

I look back at my life to date (no I am NOT having a midlife crisis) and I think of all the people that helped shape whom I am today my parents, my brothers, my friends, my family and my wife.  I also think about those people that dedicated their lives to education and how they impacted me.  People like Mrs. Haroldson (5th Grade), Mr Hegland (6th Grade), Mr. Bushroe (8th Grade), Mr DeVoss (HS Latin), Mr. Powers (HS Government), Mrs. Anderson (HS Geomotry), Jack Irwin (HS Counselor), Prof. Robert Peters (Undergrad Accounting) and Prof. Dominic Crossan (Undergrad Religion).  They all provided me an education beyond their subject matter responsibilites.  So in a way, I owe this to them.

The power of an educator making a difference is epitomized in the movie, Dead Poets Society.  If you haven't seen the movie, do it.  I will let the clip speak for itself.

Maybe someday I will have a chance to teach high school history as a second career later in life.   In the meantime, I will let my writing scratch that itch.  I am hoping that mission keeps me engaged in sharing with anyone who happens by this blog.  The topic will no longer be limited to politics, although as you may imagine, it will be a significant part of my writing going forward.  Thanks for reading.

A Question of Privilege

The question of executive privilege and when the president can use it has been asked for years.  This presidency has chosen to use more than any other.  Most recently, the President has asserted this authority to avoid submitting subpoenaed documents to Congressional oversight committees and preventing former aides from testifying at hearing about the fired US Attorneys. 

The problem here is, in my humble opinion, it is inappropriate to utilize executive privilege to avoid Congressional oversight.  Executive privilege is appropriate in matters of national security or in matters that don't involve the interests of the public (which would be very rare by definition of the government).  The president here is delivering a big F.U. to Congress and saying if he doesn't set the rules, he won't play.  It looks like we are headed to a judicial showdown on this one.  That is, of course, it the Justice Department does there job.  I say, good for Congress for pursuing this matter.

Why you ask? Because our government is founded on having three separate but equal branches of government.  So that means one third of the power in our government is held by each branch.  Or, said another way, the president is no more important to our governance than the congress or the courts.  Part of keeping these branches equal is the oversight they have over each other.  The judiciary can make laws invalid based on Constitutional interpretation (Judiciary checks Congress) or force the execution of laws (Judiciary checks Executive).  The president vetoes laws (checks Congress) and appoints judges (check judiciary).  The Congress can override vetoes, impeach (checks executive) and approves judicial appointments (checks judiciary).  However, the presidency has one advantage in power over the other branches, the power of the presidency is consolidated into 1 person, while 535 congressmen hold the power of the legislature, and numerous judges (not just the 9 supreme court justices) hold the power of the judiciary.  That is why oversight of the president and limiting his (or her) power is so darn important. 

Executive privilege is not found in the Constitution.  It has been established as a matter of law through the years (just like executive orders and signing statements).  If it continues to go unchecked, it will become precedent for other presidents to abuse.  The Congress is saying clearly here, the president has gone too far.  We will see where this goes in the court, but needless to say, a president with carte blanche, is a dangerous president.