Rice and Richardson for Vice President?

Rice and Richardson for Vice President?
Perhaps Not Such a Good Idea

She is an African-American, holds a PhD in Political Science, is the former Provost at Stanford University, served as Senior Director of Soviet and East European Affairs, served as National Security Advisor, and is currently U.S. Secretary of State.

He is half Latino, served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, held the post of Ambassador to the U.N. and was U.S. Energy Secretary. He is currently Governor of New Mexico and is very popular in that important swing state, having garnered 69% of the electorate in his re-election bid.

Republican Condoleezza Rice and Democrat Bill Richardson appear to be superlative candidates for Vice President. Rice’s resume will likely be scintillating to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Richardson’s resume and perceived electoral potency will undoubtedly bring serious consideration from the Democratic presidential nominee.
However, as the old axiom goes, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.” While on paper, Rice and Richardson appear to be outstanding vice presidential candidates; both would create serious problems for their respective tickets.

Rice’s problem comes primarily from her tenure as National Security Advisor. If Rice were to get the nod, Democrats would assail her for her failure to take the Al-Qaeda threat seriously prior to 9/11. Ad makers would be elated with thoughts of using clips from Rice’s 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission when commission-member Richard Ben-Venise asked Rice: “You acknowledge that Richard Clark [Counter-Terrorism Coordinator] told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States. Did you tell the President anytime prior to August 6 [2001] of the existence of Al-Qaeda cells in the United States?” Rice answered: “I don’t remember the Al-Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.” The ad might then show Ben-Veniste asking Rice: “Isn’t it a fact Dr. Rice that the August 6 PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] warned against possible attacks on this country, and I ask you weather you recall the title of that PDB.” Rice responded: “I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

The ad would then display the title of Rice’s 2003 article published in the New York Times: “Why We Know Iraq Is lying.” Her article makes the case that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The ad would conclude with a still photo of Rice with a voice-over saying: “Condolezza Rice --- Wrong on Al-Qaeda --- Wrong on Iraq. Can we trust her to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?”

Richardson’s tribulation stems from his time as U.S. Energy Secretary. In 2000, while Richardson was spending much time campaigning for presidential candidate Al Gore, two computer hard-drives with designs of the nation’s nuclear labs went missing from the Los Alamos Nuclear facility following a fire. They were later found behind a copy machine. During a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Richardson suffered a bi-partisan excoriation for a perceived malfeasance and inattention to his job. Members of his own party, including West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, lambasted Richardson for refusing to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the grounds that he had no answers. Byrd said to Richardson: “You have shown a supreme, a supreme contempt of the committees of this Congress . . . you have squandered your treasure, and I am sorry.” The following warning might follow this sound-bite: “If members of his own party can’t trust Richardson with national security matters, can we?”

It is extremely important that a vice presidential running-mate not antagonize the base of the presidential candidate’s party. John McCain is presently trying to establish rapprochement with the conservative base. Many conservatives are incensed with McCain’s deviations from right-wing orthodoxy on a litany of issues such as illegal immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, and climate change. Rice’s vice presidential candidacy may make a rapprochement impossible. Rice leaves the conservative reservation on what for many conservatives is a litmus test issue: abortion. She calls herself: “mildly pro-choice.” To many conservatives, opposition to abortion rights is non-negotiable, and the thought of a potential president who does not share their views could force them to sit out the election.

Richardson ran to the left during his now aborted presidential campaign. When the Democratic base looks at his history, they will find two major departures from the Left Wing. The first was Richardson’s strong advocacy for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which many liberals blame for job hemorrhaging. In fact, Barack Obama, Richardson’s potential running-mate, slammed the treaty for shipping “jobs overseas and forcing parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.” Richardson, a Congressman at the time, orchestrated the successful effort to Shepard NAFTA through the House when he was Chief Deputy Whip. Richardson’s prior support of NAFTA will have the duel distraction of alienating the Democratic base and de-energizing swing-voters in the critical NAFTA-sensitive industrial mid-west.

Richardson’s second major departure from Left-Wing orthodoxy was his advocacy for maintaining U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Many liberals maintained that the sanctions dramatically debilitated Iraq’s economy. UNICEF, for example, contends that the sanctions led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, including over half a million children due to malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases caused by a lack of clean water and chlorine. Dennis Halliday, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, resigned in protest, saying: “I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide.” Former Democratic Minority Whip David Bonier called the policy: “infanticide masquerading as policy.”

In 2005, when challenged by Voice Of America’s Amy Goodman, “Do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?” without challenging the premise of the question, Richardson deadpanned: “Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes.”

If Richardson garners the vice-presidential nomination, that clip will be played ad nauseam in the media. Hearing a potential vice-president callously defending the death of 500.000 children can only lead to consternation among his Democratic base and will cause Richardson to spend critical time defending himself.

Both Rice and Richardson have attractive resumes, but if chosen, McCain and the Democratic nominee had better have a plan for dealing with the firestorm of criticism their choices will surely elicit. Proponents of Rice and Richardson should be careful what they wish for.

Is a Ventura Presidential Run Possible and Viable?

Is a Ventura Presidential Run Possible and Viable?

“He’s ba-a-a-ck!” After spending time in the political wilderness, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has re-entered the public arena, armed with a new book and a message that is predictably quite distinct from the presidential candidates of the two major parties. Ventura, currently unattached to a political party, recently stated on “Larry King Live” that running for president would be: “Too difficult, because they make an Independent like me jump through 50 different hoops, because every state has different things you have to do to qualify to get on the ballot.”

Ventura is right. It is nearly impossible for an Independent candidate to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Our political system significantly favors the large traditional political parties at the expense of the smaller upstarts.

However, despite Ventura’s valid complaint, there is in fact an avenue available that would allow him to take a run at the presidency. Ventura could seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian convention is scheduled to be held in late May. The Party’s nomination will be decided by about 1000 delegates. Most importantly, the Party’s presidential nominee will likely have ballot status in almost all 50 states.

While Ventura excoriates political parties in general, he ran for governor in 1998 as the nominee of the Minnesota Reform Party. In that run, he “shocked the world” by “body-slamming” the Republican/Democrat hegemony, and winning the Governorship.

And while Ventura may disagree with many in the Libertarian movement, a great many of his ideas fall close to the center of the Libertarian philosophy. On the domestic front, Ventura clearly leans Libertarian. He is a proponent of fiscal austerity, an advocate of states rights, and is socially liberal. On foreign policy, Ventura’s position closely resembles the Libertarian Party view, especially regarding their steadfast opposition to the Iraq War. More broadly, Ventura is a vehement opponent of the Bush foreign policy.

The Libertarian Party would also benefit greatly from a Ventura/Libertarian alignment. Since its inception in 1971, the Libertarian Party has been in a steady state. Only one presidential candidate has garnered more than 1% of the vote in the general election. This is, in large part, because most of the Party’s nominees have failed to receive the requisite media coverage to be taken seriously by the electorate. All this could change however with a media-magnet like Ventura who has already shown that he can take on the two major parties and be successful. A Ventura nomination would thrust the Libertarian Party and its platform onto the airwaves and into American homes.

Also boding well for a Ventura/Libertarian strategic alliance is the fact that the Libertarian message has recently struck a resonant chord with a significant number of Americans. Libertarian-leaning Texas Congressman Ron Paul got a surprising number of Americans galvanized in the Republican presidential primaries. In fact, Paul raised more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007 and has become omni-present on the Internet, with almost seven million YouTube views. With Senator John McCain now the presumptive Republican nominee, and Ron Paul disavowing any interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination, there is a clear opening in the race for a charismatic figure with a Libertarian message similar to Congressman Paul’s.

How far could a Ventura/Libertarian merger go? Ventura has a significant amount of executive experience in government. Prior to becoming governor of Minnesota, he served as mayor of Brooklyn Park, the sixth biggest city in Minnesota at that time. He can lay claim to eight years of executive government experience. Some of our recent Presidents including Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush had less executive experience than Ventura. As Governor of Minnesota, Ventura presided over twice the population of former Governor Clinton’s state of Arkansas. Ventura can also point to some real achievements as Governor, including reforming the property tax system of Minnesota, returning the state surplus to the taxpayers, and bringing a successful urban public transportation system to the state.

Ventura’s presence in the Presidential race would offer a third political platform, different from the Republicans and Democrats. For example, on the Iraq War, Ventura could make the case that the Bush administration brought the country into war with the support of the Democrats, and that the Democratic Party, despite their recent rhetoric to end the war, have failed.

Ventura could also shine a spotlight on the 800 pound gorilla the two parties do not want to face, “the national debt.” Ventura could argue that when Ross Perot brought the debt to the nation’s consciousness during the 1992 elections, it stood at $4 trillion. Since that time, under stewardship of the Republicans and Democrats, the national debt has nearly doubled. According to Ventura, every American now owes $30,000 in national debt.

Ventura could easily make the case that while Democrats raise taxes; Republicans defer them to future generations. In addition, a Ventura candidacy would appeal to a diverse cross-section of constituencies, including fiscal conservatives, gun control opponents, free traders on the right, opponents of the Iraq war, abortion rights supporters, and gay rights activists on the left.

In addition, a Ventura Campaign could capitalize on the general malaise grabbing hold of the country. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 81% of the respondents stated that the nation was heading in the wrong direction. According to the pollster, this is up from 69% last year, and up from 35% in 2002.

A Ventura/Libertarian strategic alliance would allow Ventura to take a shot at the White House and would significantly promote a public consideration of Libertarian ideas. Ventura attracts the media, does well in debates, and has executive experience in government. This combination of factors gives Jesse Ventura the chance he needs to create political traction in a run for the presidency.

“Money for Nothin, Get Your Senate Checks for Free”

“Money for Nothin, Get Your Senate Checks for Free”

How would you like a job that pays $169,300 annually, includes outstanding health care and retirement benefits, two offices and a staff, and here is the best part, you don’t even have to show up for work. In fact, you can spend your time working on trying to get a better job. This dream job is that of a United States Senator.

Every election season while the Senate is in session, many incumbent Senators are absent from the Senate Chamber as the Senate debates and votes on issues which have a direct impact upon their constituents. These Senators can be seen barnstorming the country, raising money and courting voters as they run for President. Since 1960, 50 sitting U.S. Senators have sought the presidency.

Believe it or not, not so long ago there was a statute on the books, “Title 2, Section 39” which prevented this inappropriate practice. The statute is quoted below:

“The Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, respectively, shall deduct from the monthly payments of each member the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such member assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.”

The measure was passed in 1856, but has never been enforced. In 2005, after being on the books for nearly 150 years, the Senate exempted itself from this law. Interestingly, the act still applies to the U.S. House of Representative, but again, it has never been enforced. So the next time you see your Congressman seeking higher office while the House is in session, ask him or her if they think they deserve to be paid while devoting most of their time and effort campaigning for another job.

The most absent Senator in recent times was Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kerry missed 72% of the Senate votes during his presidential run in the 2003-2004 Congressional session. Essentially, Massachusetts spent two years represented by a “very” part-time Senator.

But the citizens of Massachusetts have become accustomed to having part-time politicians. In 2006, then Governor Mitt Romney spent 220 days out-of-state, mostly on campaign business. Sometimes Massachusetts politicians even forget they have a day job at all. In 1987 Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis began a statement by saying, “If I were a sitting governor today. . . .” Well, at the time he made this statement he was in fact a sitting governor!

The greatest show of arrogance however came from John Kerry’s vice-presidential running-mate, part-time North Carolina Senator John Edwards. In his bid to become Senator, Edwards eked out a four-point victory over an incumbent Republican, promising North Carolinians that he would be “a fierce, passionate voice on the floor of the United States Senate.” Just four years into his six-year Senate term Edwards began a run for the Presidency, and later became a vice-presidential candidate. During that time he missed 42% of Senate votes, earning him the unfortunate moniker: “Senator Gone.”

Independent-Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut won his Senate seat in 1988 partly by blaming his opponent, then Republican Senator Lowell Weicker for having “ . . . one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.” Lieberman added, ''He's missed votes that could have really helped middle-class taxpayers, could have helped clean up our environment, could have protected jobs.'' Weicker’s attendance rate was actually 90%. Ironically, in his presidential run in 2003-2004, Lieberman missed 39% of Senate Votes.

Calling for Government reform, New York Senator Hillary Clinton advocates the need to return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, and governmental oversight and accountability. However, Senator Clinton has become so transparent that some would say she is close to “invisible,” having already missed 27% of her Senate votes during the current session. If Congress is to perform that role of oversight and accountability as Senator Clinton advocates, then shouldn’t Senators be working in the Senate doing the work of the people?

Illinois Senator Barack Obama promised his constituents after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois." Despite this categorical statement, Obama has missed 37% of his Senate votes. His focus does not seem to be on Illinois. His Senate website Calendar of Events states: “There are no Senate events scheduled at this time.”

The most egregious offender of this shirking of Senatorial responsibility is Arizona Senator John McCain. While McCain advocates strongly for accountability in schools and housing programs, as of March 14, 2008 he has missed 56% of Senate votes. McCain is in fact a repeat offender. In the presidential contest of 1999-2000, Senator McCain missed 30% of the Senate votes.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback of Kansas missed 26% of the Senate votes during his recent failed campaign. His spokesperson, Brian Hart, stated that Senator Brownback “would try his best to come back for any vote where he was absolutely needed for the outcome.” Somewhere it seems to have been forgotten that a Senator’s job is much more than the simple act of voting. A Senator attends committee hearings, collaborates with colleagues, attends and participates in discussions, and proposes amendments to legislation.

To counter this abuse and to make our Senators accountable again to the people, Title 2, Section 39 should be reinstated and enforced. Taxpayers who would certainly be fired for playing hooky from their jobs should not be forced to pay the salaries for absentee Senators who openly skip work to look for better jobs. As Peter Sepp of the National Tax Payers Union states: “With Presidential campaigns turning into two-and three-year sagas, the no-work, no-pay law is more relevant than ever . . . with more campaign drama to come, hundreds of thousands of tax dollars could be wasted on paying lawmakers who are hunting for a better job than the one the people elected them to do.”

Let’s get back to making our highly paid Senators accountable to the people again: “No money for nothin!” “No Senate checks for free!”

Obama-Nelson ‘08?

Obama-Nelson ‘08?

If Barack Obama is awarded the Democratic presidential nomination, his first major decision will be the selection of a running mate. While some may advise Obama to seek Hillary Clinton for that post, Obama may want to consider a broader array of strategic options.

As history dictates, the most important asset for a potential running mate is that he or she not become a liability in the campaign. For example, in 1968, when the Republican nominee Richard Nixon chose the little known Governor of Maryland, Spiro Agnew, the reaction from political observers was: “Spiro Who?” The campaign of Nixon’s opponent, then Vice President Hubert Humphrey, exploited Agnew’s lack of experience and credibility, running an advertisement on television with a banner reading: “Agnew for Vice President” with laughter in the background. The ad ended with the punch-line: “This would be funny if it weren’t so serious.”

It is imperative for a vice presidential nominee to be viewed by the electorate as a credible person with requisite experience should he/she be forced to assume the presidency. Beyond that, it helps that the nominee hails from an electoral showdown state. For example, Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson helped win the electoral-rich lone star state for John F. Kennedy.

Johnson was the ideal nominee in that he served the ticket in a micro sense by bringing to the campaign his enormous popularity in his home state of Texas. In addition, he helped the ticket in the macro sense as well. Johnson brought 24 years of Congressional service, including almost six years as the Senate Majority Leader. Having a seasoned government official in Johnson on the ticket helped to inoculate Kennedy from the charge that he had little experience. Moreover, Johnson was a rare moderate in a polarized Democratic Party Senate Caucus.

Obama is actually more of a political neophyte than Kennedy, having just been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Given this dearth of experience, I would suggest Obama choose Florida Senator Bill Nelson as his running mate.

Like Johnson, Nelson can serve a micro purpose in that he represents arguably the most important state in the electoral union, Florida, a political combat zone. No Republican has won the Presidency without carrying the Sunshine state since 1924. It is hard to envisage a scenario in which a Republican wins the presidency without garnering Florida’s critical 27 electoral votes.

Nelson has shown his electoral prowess in Florida, having been re-elected in 2006 with 60% of the vote. In addition, he won five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from a Congressional district which includes Brevard County, not known as a citadel of liberalism, and where President Bush garnered 57% of the vote in 2004. In a state as important and as closely divided as Florida, Nelson’s presence on the ticket could tip the electoral scale. One must wonder, had Al Gore chosen Florida’s then popular Senator Bob Graham as his running-mate in 2000, would the American people have gotten acquainted with hanging Chads, pregnant Chads, or bulging Chads?

Furthermore, Nelson’s presence on the ticket would be a major asset to the Obama candidacy at the macro level. Nelson brings gravitas in the critical area of national security. He is a member of both the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees.

From a strategic standpoint, the choice of Senator Nelson would likely put Senator McCain on the defensive. Knowing how pivotal Florida is to his electoral chances, the Arizonan might be forced to choose a running mate from this battleground state simply to neutralize Nelson’s presence in the race.

In Florida, McCain would find only two viable candidates: current Florida Governor Charles Crist and his predecessor Jeb Bush. Charles Crist is immensely popular in Florida, sporting approval ratings exceeding 70%. Crist’s presence on the ticket may neutralize Nelson’s influence.

Nationally, the choice of Crist by McCain would be seen largely as an act of pure political expediency. While most would concede that Crist has been a successful Governor in his short tenure (elected in 2006), the McCain campaign would have a difficult time making the case that Crist has the requisite qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Furthermore, adding Crist to the ticket would likely inflame the Conservative inteligencia who are luke-warm toward Senator McCain’s candidacy already. Crist has not governed as an ideologue but as a problem-solver working across party lines. Adding fuel to the fire, Governor Crist said in a December press conference that he is a “live and let live kind of a guy,” and although he supports a proposed state Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Crist insists: “It’s not an issue that moves me.” In addition, many conservatives are indignant that, as Florida Attorney General, Crist chose not to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case.

The other realistic option for McCain would be former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Bush left office with a job approval rating exceeding 60%. Accordingly, the choice of Jeb Bush might help neutralize Obama’s choice of Nelson in the Sunshine state. However, his last name happens to be “Bush.” His brother George W. Bush is presently suffering from anemic approval ratings in the low 30’s. Bush fatigue would likely hinder a McCain-Bush ticket.

Finally, there is a similitude between Lyndon Johnson and Bill Nelson. Both positioned themselves at the center of the Democratic Party. The choice of Nelson would likely be palatable to moderates, while not alienating Obama’s liberal constituency. For example, while Nelson voted for the authorization of funding for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002, he has since become a critic of solving the conflict with military might, having voted against President Bush’s troop surge plan while favoring instead a phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Also, Nelson is pro-choice, yet favors notifying parents of minors who seek out-of-state abortions. Furthermore, Nelson voted for the confirmation of President Bush’s choice for Chief Justice John Roberts, yet voted against his choice of Samuel Alito as Associate Justice.

Within the extremes of the Democratic Party, Nelson would be a consensus choice, palatable as a Vice President and very credible as air-apparent to Obama. Strategically, adding Bill Nelson to the ticket would be an electorally prudent decision for Obama. Let the games begin!