Smith For President BlogVote ObamaColin Powell and Christopher Buckley have both summed it up quite eloquently in these past few days. My ballot came yesterday (we have vote by mail here in Oregon), and I immediately sat down and cast my vote for Barack Obama. The Republican Party, as embodied by the McCain-Palin campaign, no longer stands for any positive principle. Vote Obama! Posted 80 days ago by Michael Smith Obama has pizza in Corvallis!I guess Barack Obama stopped for pizza this evening in downtown Corvallis at American Dream Pizza. (On his way to the big rally in Eugene.) The news is buzzing around town like wildfire. The cops had 2nd street blocked off and the world came to a screeching halt. Well, big deal. I had a beer in there last Friday. Posted 291 days ago by Michael Smith Evangelicals ruin the Republican PartyVote for Obama. If you have any hope that constitutional government will respect your liberty, you can’t seriously support Mike Huckabee and the evangelical Republicans. The theocracy of social conservatism will steal your civil liberties in the name of security, will infringe your personal freedoms in the name of God, and will violate international sovereignties in the name democracy. Democrats may violate your wallet in their quest for societal harmony, but after the last few years can you doubt that Republicans have wasted your money for less noble causes? After seeing the results of the Iowa caucuses it looks quite plausible that Barack Obama could be the Democratic candidate this fall. I’d easily vote for him over Mike Huckabee Posted 369 days ago by Michael Smith CommentOK, so who would I vote for?If the election were held today? I’d probably vote for Bill Richardson. As a governor and former ambassador to the UN, he probably has the strongest qualification. I think he’d be a safe choice, and his presidency would probably be viewed by history as completely forgettable. After eight years of G.W., forgettable might be just what we need. First, let me explain the biggest “truth” I learned from my naïve attempt to get involved in politics: there are no “principled” politicians. (At least no successful ones.) Successful politics is not about the Constitution, or rights, or fairness, or any high-minded ideals. Successful politicians don’t start with concept and convictions; they start like anyone in marketing by defining their audience. They calculate a potential audience, then they figure out what that audience wants to hear. Then they tell them exactly what they want to hear over and over again. The second more uncomfortable realization I’ve had: the Democratic “audience” is at least mostly well meaning (if misguided). The Republican audience is predominantly selfish, phobic, and most troubling of all – often willing to use the most high-minded principles of religion and Constitution to inflict their narrow-minded will on others. I don’t agree with Democrat’s methods toward their vision of health, peace, and prosperity; but who would argue with the fundamental components of their vision? Too many Republicans fail their professed vision of liberty and opportunity. They seek a theocracy of self-serving peace and prosperity. Government is just a mechanism to protect their “have” status. So, the candidates? Mitt Romney – Sorry, he’s Mormon. I don’t think faith is an issue in itself, but honestly, don’t you question the intellect of anyone who believes in Scientology, pixies, or the book of Mormon? John McCain – Sorry, he’s too old. He has also changed his spots too frequently as he has attempted to cozy up with social conservatives. This is his last hurrah, and his desperation shows. Rudy Giuliani – OK, I like the fact that he’s not from the social conservative mold, but I haven’t heard anything meaningful from him. 9/11 is not a base from which to gain my vote. Mike Huckabee. – Sorry, no. I like the fact that he supports a consumption tax in place of income taxes, but those who support him do so for all the wrong stupid social conservative reasons. Ron Paul – Reluctantly, no. I like most parts of his libertarian message, but he’s sprinkled it with too much anti-immigration nonsense, and railing against the Federal Reserve is a bit too fringe. Good luck to his grass-roots effort. I hope he rattles some cages, but he’s not the right guy for the White House. Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, et al. Forget it. The Democrats? Hillary? – wouldn’t get my vote, but if she’s elected it wouldn’t be the end of the world. I see politics like a pendulum, and the Republicans have pulled it pretty far to one side. A swing back to the other side seems almost inevitable. Bill Clinton did a better job of balancing budgets and keeping government growth under control than G.W. ever has. Barack Obama – yeah maybe. I could vote for him just to watch what might happen. I think he’d do better than Hillary, and would provide a more productive presidency than any of the Republican alternatives. John Edwards? $400 haircut, pretty-boy populist? Are you kidding? I think he’s as phony as can be. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich? Maybe one of these guys I could take seriously, but at least two are kooks. My campaign was just as credible. Bill Richardson. Yes. Former UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, and Governor of New Mexico. I’m not sure why the media has never given him much attention. Perhaps the Democratic audience has never taken to him for exactly the reason I find him acceptable – he’s not particularly flashy or extreme in his rhetoric. Posted 374 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [2]Kathleen and I; Domestic Partners.On January 1st, 2008, my wife and I intend to file for domestic partnership rights under Oregon’s new provisions. I see this as a matter of principles that symbolizes my support for the concept that any two consenting adults should be able to enter an economic and emotional partnership without government imposing lopsided religious judgments on them. I encourage my fellow Oregonians to join us. Embrace the proposition that religious ceremonies should have little influence on the legal pairings recognized by government. I figure that anyone who might take offense is likely someone I won’t mind offending. The prudes who see domestic partnership as a threat to “the sanctity of marriage” would be appalled that Kathleen and I were married by a new-age witch some eighteen years ago. With Mormon, Jewish, and Catholic parents, we figured we were bound to offend someone, particularly our own sensibilities, if we went with a religious ceremony. So we asked around and found a licensed acquaintance who would perform our ceremony with minimal religious mumbo-jumbo. As I recall, for $50 we got the basic “do you promise…” ceremony. We didn’t recite anything of our own – we figured we were paying Joyce to do the talking. We didn’t know much about Joyce’s religious background. We knew she had a California ordination in some obscure organization. As we approached our November wedding date, we were surprised to see Joyce on the cover of the local paper’s weekend supplement a few days before Halloween. It seems Joyce was one of several local “Witches” featured in the pre-Halloween edition. So, registration for domestic partnership might even seem an upgrade from the godless state of sin in which some would accuse of living. Sinful or not, we’re comfortable with the eighteen years we’ve had. The “sanctity” of our marriage seems to have little to do with the trappings of the ceremony. I’ve seen plenty of marriages sanctified by the trappings of church and religious dogma – yet dysfunctional and hardly enviable. So, I’m looking forward to January 1 and the sanctity of redundant state recognition of our household. For the “conservatives” who balk at the separation of church and state, perhaps state recognition of our domestic partnership will confer religious credibility on our household. Michael Posted 521 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [5]Parental RightsI just responded to an e-mail that is part of a conversation I’ve had with a local woman on the issue of parenting rights. What do you think?
My response: I’m not sure I can do too much to support your cause. I definitely believe that there should be limits on how much government gets involved in the lives of consenting adults, but when it comes to protecting children I probably support more government attention than you do. I’m not sure of all the subtleties of your views, but from our prior conversations I gather than you feel that parental rights should not be “second guessed” by government. The problem I see is that there will always be a subset of parents who don’t act in the best interests of their children, although the societal measures of “best interests” will always be debatable. So, let me offer a couple of examples that I’ve seen arise in the public debate over the years:
I would agree that our Constitution does not give the federal government a mandate for programs like “No Child Left Behind” and has created a burdensome bureaucracy, but the US Constitution also leaves many issues of social order and public welfare to the state and local governments. I think it is a completely acceptable function of state and local government to enforce the local community’s view of the public good when considering minors. Consenting adults should be fairly free to act on their own conscience in the privacy of their own homes, but the vulnerabilities of children justify state oversight. So, I suspect that our views may be different on this topic. When I see a phrase like “agencies who have been pirating our children,” I’m afraid that I can’t quite see the issue in those extreme terms. There will always be isolated cases where the desire to protect the child’s interests creates a heavy-handed government response, but I’d prefer to see the system err on the side of the child’s interests than to err on the side of the adult’s. Thanks, Michael Smith Posted 597 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [1]Farewell FalwellJerry Falwell died today. If only we could expect an end of an era. Unfortunately, the religious right demonstrates considerable sway over the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater had it right when he said ‘Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass’ Michael Posted 603 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [2]Republican Debate 5:00 PacificTen Republican presidential candidates will crowd the stage Thursday evening at the Reagan Library in California (my invitation must have been lost in the mail). It will be broadcast on MSNBC. Will we see anything meaningful? Any glimpses of leadership, or creative thinking? I’m hoping Ron Paul can distinguish himself, and I hope Rudy Giuliani does well. I don’t expect anything very dazzling from the rest of the mob. I’ll keep track of the questions and post my responses right here. Michael Posted 615 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [4]War Czar? No Frickin’ Way.You mean the President will share his constitutionally dubious authority to run this un-declared war with an appointed bureaucrat? Or does he merely hope to share the accountability? President Bush’s political foes should howl with outrage, and his supporters should hide their faces in embarrassment. Linguistically the term “czar” offends. Coming from the root “Caesar” (like Keizer), it should be interpreted as more that an authoritative bureaucrat – it means Emperor. Our founding fathers fought to keep “czars” and other monarchs out of the American government. Conceptually, Americans shouldn’t accept any dilution of accountability for the Iraq war. George W. Bush actively sought authorization, and has claimed the mantle of “decider” many times. With that authority comes accountability. President Bush deserves all the credit for Iraq. Don’t be distracted by changing Secretaries of Defense, Commanding Generals, or “Czars.” This war is George Bush’s legacy. The buck stops in the Oval Office. Michael Posted 632 days ago by Michael Smith Comment [1]You Can’t Push a RopeI find my campaign at a bit of a crossroads. I’ve learned a lot over the last year, and I realize how far I have to go in the next year before Oregon’s primary. At this point I will be putting the campaign on “glide.” I’ll continue to post comments to the blog, and I’ll participate in any interviews that arise, but I can’t justify spending further resources (time and money) that should be directed toward my family. Consider Rep. Ron Paul. Of the current credible Republican candidates, Ron Paul represents the most distinct choice for limited government and individual liberty. I hope we see his name on the Oregon primary ballot. If the primary were held today, I’d vote for Ron Paul. Watch Rudy Giuliani. There are points on which I don’t agree with Rudy, but I think his approach toward government is practical and effective. He is much more socially open-minded than most of his Republican competition. I think he is one of the few Republican candidates who could be electable after the eight-year reign of dubious governance by the current cabal of social-cons, neo-cons, xenophobes, homophobes, and thought police. Hold your nose if you must vote for John McCain. His straight-talk express has been morphed to every audience and every issue. This career politician is grasping at all straws in this last hurrah of a campaign. Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Gingirch, Tancredo; All pseudo-cons who will adopt a social or religious conservatism and shove it down the throat of the American people through an intrusive big-government approach to legislating morality. Vote for a Democrat or stay home rather than voting for these usurpers of liberty. Thanks to everyone who has been supportive of my campaign to this point. I know there’s an audience for my message, and I was encouraged by my showing at the Dorchester Conference, but without millions of dollars to sell the message, it’s hard to get an audience. Now that the big money is getting involved, the “marketplace of ideas” is overwhelmed by quantity over quality. Michael Posted 649 days ago by Michael Smith Comment |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
