Archive for ‘Partisan Politics’

« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »
February 10, 2019

Thoughts about Presidential Candidates

by Steve Dana

In 2016, Republicans went through the process of selecting a presidential candidate from a large field (17 candidates) that ultimately narrowed it down to Donald Trump.  Now with the democrats forced to pick a challenger, it looks like they will have even more names than the GOP.  Some estimates say the field will number more than 20 Democrats but realistically, you have to produce some creds to be taken seriously and most of the wannabes will fail to deliver; Vanity campaigns.  Hoping to learn from the past, I compiled a file on past presidents to see if there were patterns that might lead to a winner in 2020.

It’s interesting to note who our presidents have been over the past sixty years and where they came from.  John Kennedy was a first term Senator in 1960.  Kennedy’s work life was almost entirely as an elected member of the congress both in the house and the senate.  He was a first term senator from Massachusetts when he ran.  Lyndon Johnson took over after Kennedy’s assassination and was elected to the job in 1964 but he was also a senator from Texas before teaming with Kennedy as his vice president.  Lyndon Johnson spent most of his working life in the congress both in the house and the senate.  He was a lawyer.

In 1968 Richard Nixon (a lawyer) was out of government but came back to win the presidency. His previous job had been Eisenhower’s vice president and before that he was in the congress from California.  When he was driven out of office following his re-election in ’72, Jerry Ford filled in but failed to win election to his own term.  Ford was also a lawyer and career politician.

Jimmy Carter was governor from Georgia and a relative unknown, but he came out of the sticks and beat Ford in 1976.  Carter had been a farmer before election to governor. Carter was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent a number of years serving in the Navy.  Carter was not a lawyer.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won and was re-elected in 1984.  Reagan had been governor of California previous to running for president.  He was thought of as a weak candidate because of his actor back ground.   In 1988 George Bush won the presidency after being Reagan’s vice president for eight years.  He only served one term.  Bush 41 was probably the best qualified candidate in modern times having been a successful business man in Texas before serving in the congress, as an ambassador and as director of the CIA.  Neither Reagan or Bush 41 were lawyers.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected as governor of Arkansas.  Other than being a lawyer by trade he spent his whole working life as an elected official in Arkansas.  Clinton served two terms.  Where Nixon resigned before he was impeached, Clinton stuck it out through the impeachment process but was not removed from office by the senate.

In 2000, George W Bush won the presidency as the governor of Texas.  He served two terms.  He spent eight years as governor of Texas but previous to that was an OIL MAN in the state. Bush 43 was not a lawyer.

In 2008, Barack Obama won a hard-fought battle to be the democrat nominee over Hillary Clinton then defeated John McCain for the presidency.  Obama was a lawyer by trade whose work history described him as a neighborhood organizer.  Other than that, he had never held a job until being elected to the Illinois State legislature.  He was a first term Senator when he ran for president.

In 2016 businessman and political rookie Donald Trump defeated sixteen primary rivals and the vaunted Hillary Clinton to be president.  He came directly to the highest office in the land from the business world.  It wasn’t the first time in our country’s history that it happened, but in the modern era it was unheard of.  More often than not, the candidates have been lawyers by trade.  In my mind that is not a recommendation.  Of the winners of the office in this review all but Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and Trump were lawyers.  Is it any wonder our country is in the dire straits with so many lawyers in charge?  Of the non-lawyers, all were Republicans except Carter.

So, in review, voters in America have been fed lawyers with little or no management experience running anything in the private sector to manage the largest enterprise in the world and we’re surprised it hasn’t thrived?

The success of a president is frequently impacted by the level of cooperation with the congress.  If you have a president with a congress of the same party the outcome can be impressive because of the compatible ideology.  A president with a split congress will be somewhat less successful because of the compromise required to work with the opposition party.  The hardest time a president will have if the congress is wholly of the opposition party.  That is hell in the world of politics.

Gauging the success of presidents needs to be viewed in the context of the congresses they worked with. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be successful if the congress is with you.  It takes a master deal maker to accomplish anything if the congress is opposite.  From a nuance perspective, the size of the political majority is also a factor.

If Trump is the deal maker he tells us he is, the next two years will be his biggest test.  The clinker might be the determination of the opposition to prove him to be a loud-mouthed blow hard.  Sadly, Trump’s style will not serve him when he in forced to work with people he has insulted time and time again.  That might be a teaching moment for Trump.  Insulting your rivals might bite you in the ass down the road.

Now moving forward to the looming campaign of 2020, the Democrats are jockeying for the run.  It’s interesting to note the number of first term senators (like Obama) who view the time being right for another lawyer to run the country.  It appears that lawyers will be the most numerous in the field this cycle as well.

Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and now Amy Klobuchar all lawyers, all career politicians.  None of them have experience running a business or managing an organization larger than a campaign.

Bernie Sanders is a career politician but is not a lawyer.  Interestingly, the Democrats allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat when he competed against Hillary Clinton even though he does not belong to the Democrat Party.  It will be interesting in the next cycle to see if they allow an unaffiliated candidate to participate.  Howard Schultz is thinking about running as an independent even though he has always identified as a democrat.  How can Sanders run as a D if he’s never identified with the party?

I have to concede that Abe Lincoln was a lawyer, so I’m not completely turned off by them but the reason our country is in the difficulty we are is largely due to lawyers and insurance companies.  And yet, we keep regurgitating lawyers as candidates.

Donald Trump has demonstrated that a guy with good business instincts can do good work leading the country so I don’t think we should eliminate business people from consideration.  As a side consideration, for a business guy, being president calls for a cut in pay.  For career politicians, election to the presidency is a step up in status and pay.  It might be worthwhile to develop a cultivation program for business people as candidates so they can bring that experience to the job.

Finally, what we’ve learned from Trump is that our president does need a bedside manner.  Our president needs to be the hard ass in private while being civil in public.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »

May 10, 2016

Trump is the Candidate for THIS FIGHT!

by Steve Dana

I find it interesting that Republican Senators and Representatives in the Congress known for being moderates are withholding their support for Donald Trump because he isn’t a proven Conservative.

Isn’t that laughable!

In my mind, the only proven Conservative in the primary process is/was Ted Cruz and the same critics that hate Trump hate Ted Cruz’s guts and wouldn’t support a Proven Conservative to save their lives.

Just the other day, President Obama was talking about how Presidential candidates should be qualified in X number of ways.  Ironically, none of the qualifications he ascribes to ideal candidates actually described Barack Obama.  Truth be told, Obama the candidate was probably the least qualified candidate for President in our country’s history.  Talk about an empty resume.

Obama the candidate had zero accomplishments of note at any point in his career from the early days in the private sector as a Community Organizer to the Illinois State Legislature and then to the US Senate.  No accomplishments, even minor; No legislation sponsored or passed at any point in his public service history…including 8 years as President.  Talk about a ZERO.  And this guy is criticizing the slate of Republican candidates and giving us advice on who we should elect next?

When you think about it, career politicians rarely have a record of real accomplishment and even rarer, a record of failure.  Most career politicians thrive on NO ACCOUNTABILITY so voters have no real measure of their actual worth.  Many career politicians are lawyers with few management experiences or skills.  But boy, are they good talkers.

Thomas Edison always said that he is proud of his successes, but he’s most proud of some of his failures since they ultimately led him to the success.  Reminds me of a Will Rogers type quip.  “Show me a man with no failures in his resume and I will show you a man who never tried anything.”

The fact that Donald Trump is not a member of the “In Crowd, The Club, The Congressional Mafia” makes him an Untouchable.  If all he has is business experience with his successes and failures, he isn’t qualified for the job.  Give me a break.

Most of us voters know that Donald Trump isn’t a Conservative but like he said, it’s not the Conservative Party, it’s the Republican Party.  The fact that his stance on some social issues isn’t as conservative as I would like doesn’t mean that he won’t uphold the Constitution better than Obama has or better than Clinton or Sanders would.

Neither McCain nor Romney were ever characterized as Conservatives.  They were moderate Republicans who failed miserably as candidates because they had no back bone.  I guess you could call them Classy Losers.

Recently I heard Dinesh DeSouza speak at the Snohomish County Lincoln Day Dinner and he characterized Democrats as scrappy fighters who came with guns ablazing and Republicans obsessed with fighting by the rules.  Which camp do you think is committed to winning the contest?

I want a candidate fighting for my country like he would if his spouse was held captive by the Taliban.  The heroes we root for are the ones that think and act “outside the box”.  I think most of working class America will see that Trump is the candidate for this fight and ultimately for saving traditional American life.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
September 7, 2015

Is POLITICAL Experience Essential in a Presidential Candidate?

by Steve Dana

I continue to be amazed at how many pundits suggest that all the OUTSIDER candidates including Trump, Carson and Fiorina lack the EXPERIENCE to be our President.  They all think that being a politician is the training necessary to be a leader.  I wonder about that.

None of the guys that have served as professional elected officials have the experience necessary to be our President either.  Realistically, no person elected to the Presidency has come to the job with Presidential experience.  They all have to learn on the job.  The question is how fast and how well do they learn?  I’ll take a smart guy who can learn fast every time.

Senators without experience managing a bureaucracy of any kind have demonstrated that their background is no recommendation.  I suspect that all the OUTSIDER Candidates have more experience managing a bureaucracy that they do.

Governors certainly have been in a position to manage large bureaucracies, but that experience by itself is no recommendation either.

And the pundits suggest that experience at the legislative process is a necessity.  I would only suggest we look at the success of the Democrat’s current president and their leading candidates and their legislative accomplishments.  Zip.  Then I would look at the legislative accomplishments of the Republican candidates.  Let’s look at the Senators first.  Senator Rand Paul…nada.  Senator Marco Rubio….nada.  Senator Ted Cruz….nada.  Senator Lindsey Graham and former Senator Rick Santorum.. …ditto.  Then let’s look at the Governors.  We have either active governors or former governors of Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, Arkansas, New York, Louisiana and Virginia.  Depending upon whether they had the luxury of working with legislative majorities from their own party or had to struggle with majorities of the other party, their records vary.  Rick Perry makes a case for his own candidacy if a Republican Governor in a Republican state (the size of Texas) touts the collective accomplishments.  Scott Walker’s battles in Wisconsin are legend but his legislature is also from his own party.  Chris Christy, John Kasich and Bobby Jindal all have some success working with majorities from the other party and they speak to that struggle of working in a bi-partisan manner to make deals but none are so wildly successful that their record speaks for them.  Bush, Huckabee, Pataki and Gilmore have been out of office quite a while and their records are not stellar.  So where does that leave us?

Each of the candidates in this race bring experiences to the table.  Trump’s bravado diminishes his record of building a substantial business empire, but he has indeed amassed a fortune measured in the billions of dollars.  That’s no small accomplishment.  He has an MBA from Wharton so he’s no dummy. Does that make him more or less capable than Jeb Bush or Chris Christy?  I don’t know.

Dr. Carson and Carly Fiorina have very respectable résumés with lots of experience managing a bureaucracy and negotiating with a board of directors.  They are both very well educated along with being bright.  I think they have both learned to adapt to the changes within their fields.  They don’t have experience caving in to partisan string pullers.  Does that disqualify them from serving as President?

As the campaign season unfolds, the three non-politician candidates seem to be saying things that appeal to non-political citizens and annoying the hell out of the partisans.  That has some appeal to me too.

For me, I need to be convinced that one of those other MORE EXPERIENCED candidates has my interests at heart rather than the interests of a political party or special interest group.  In the last couple election cycles we elected folks to the Congress with the expectation that a Republican majority was all we needed to enact a conservative agenda and we got absolutely nothing from The House or The Senate.  Guys like Boehner and McConnell are likely to vote with the Democrats if the Conservatives in Congress get stronger.  Leadership positions are primarily determined by seniority rather than actual leadership so I’m not sure what legislative experience has to do with a candidates’ qualification to run for President.  It does suggest that they have learned to kowtow to the money.

I encourage all voters from both parties to listen to what the candidates are saying and tell me if Jeb Bush is any more specific with his proposed future for our country than is Trump, Carson or Fiorina.  Or for that matter any of the others.  Few of them have gotten too specific so far.

And finally, when Hugh Hewitt asked Trump about some General named Soleimani who is the military leader of the terrorist Quds, he did it with the expectation that Trump wouldn’t be knowledgeable about the guy and he would make him appear ignorant… I mean stupid and unfit for the job of President.  My expectation is that all of the candidates running for President will get to know the significant leaders and many of the insignificant leaders of other countries.  Whether it’s terrorist leaders or some other less known facts, guys like Hewitt have their special candidates and often will do whatever they can to belittle the ones that threaten their guy.

The pundits seem to think that when Perry, Pataki, Gilmore, Jindal, Huckabee, Graham, Santorum, Christie, Kasich and Walker fade, their supporters will all flock to Bush or Rubio leaving Trump, Carson or Fiorina out in the cold.  I guess time will tell.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
December 15, 2014

Bad Government Happens when Good Men do Nothing!

by Steve Dana

What we saw over the week-end was a demonstration that John Boehner is no different than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. They apparently think it’s okay to create significant legislation without input from their members in secret. It makes it hard to have confidence in Boehner as Speaker of the House of Representatives to do the right thing. He’s no better than Harry or Nancy.

The fact that Boehner and Reid may have conspired to create bad legislations is secondary to the real problem; elected officials failed to follow their own rules required to pass legislation.

The Congress in both houses has a committee structure that is designed to promote public review and member debate on the merits of proposed legislation. One of the desirable aspects of our government is the requirement that the actions be deliberative. Nobody likes to have to pass it before we learn what’s in it.

And yet, the “elite” leadership in the House (from both parties) did conspire with Senate Majority Leader Reid to craft legislation authorizing government spending of more than a Trillion Dollars without the opportunity for members of either party to even know what they were being asked to vote on.

In his wisdom, Speaker Boehner recognized that his caucus was not united in support of his plan so he enlisted the special interests of the Democrat opposition to cobble together enough votes to pass a bad bill to the Senate where outgoing Senate Majority Leader Reid faced a similar struggle assembling enough votes from both sides of the aisle to slip it past the Senate and the rest of us. With the help of “incentives” they were successful.

I think what I object to at the base level is the use of omnibus legislation period. I don’t like the idea of special interest combined bills that sell good government down the river for the votes of pork barrel voters.

I’m wondering what all the congressional budget committees have been working on if they aren’t the ones that proposed the bill that was passed so quickly. I’m wondering how the House Committee Chairs that attached riders to a budget bill without debate in their committees.

Being a supporter of the Republican side of the process, I am not encouraged with the performance of my guys. I got nothing.  I am not pleased with the underhanded tactics employed by Boehner and McCarthy. If this is the leadership my party is proposing for the coming year, I’m not feeling too good.

One of the reasons American voters turned out the D’s in the fall elections was a lack of transparency. That would be the decision making in secret without member debate and public observation. That would be flat out lying to us.

Early in my public service career, my mentor Kelly Robinson taught me the importance of process in government. The absolute need to develop public processes that insure participation by all parties (and I don’t mean political parties) so that the collaborative outcome has legitimacy. I didn’t say fair or just, I did say legitimate since fairness or justness are fleeting. If we agree on rules we operate under in advance then we should be legit; the caveat being suspension of the rules because of “emergency”. Think about how many times your elected officials told you they needed to respond to the emergency which allows them to suspend their own rules and their accountability.

We elect these full time legislators and pay them handsome salaries with benefits to do the business of government and yet they are constantly working in “emergency” mode. What’s with that? If they weren’t in “recess” all the time they might get something done.

As unfortunate as it might be, Jonathan Gruber was right; the American public is stupid. And for my team, the conservatives, the leadership within the Beltway is in full agreement with him. The term “political elite” applies to both parties. Sadly, the thought that our elected officials are there to serve us is just not true. After a single term in office, the establishment determines whether a newcomer is suitable for membership in the club (that is a team player) and with that almost a guaranteed job for life serving the club and not the constituents that repeatedly elect them.

I am challenged to defend Republicans for their behavior and decisions by people I meet in my community. I have always said that the further from the constituents an elected official works, the less they feel obligated to those constituents and the poorer the quality of government. I know that when we do our homework and know what is in the hearts of our candidates by their past deeds (and to a lesser extent their words) we can decide whether to send them to a government job far, far away. It’s character, honesty and morality that will define their service.

I don’t like it when our elected officials fail to do their jobs and the result is threatening to “shut down” the government. I guess if you fail to do your job, you are in continual emergency mode.

Leadership is one of the qualities we expect in every candidate we elect. I can’t think of a position where the candidate doesn’t talk about his leadership qualities. What I am seeing in our federal government is a failure of leadership at every level. I don’t have much confidence that many of the 537 elected officials in Washington DC are working on my behalf.

I don’t want the government to shut down, I want everyone on the job who should be on the job. That includes those elected officials on the job, doing their jobs. I don’t want my congress woman to tell me that she is not part of the leadership and she can’t control the agenda. I want her to stand up in the House and demand that she and her colleagues be included in the process of government. If that means she’s rattling the cage, so be it. Edmund Burke hit the nail on the head when he said “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.” Bad government can only happen if good men and women choose to let it happen.

I guess if you are corrupt then being silent makes perfect sense. I’m coming to the conclusion that since so many of them are silent, they must be of questionable character if they are not corrupt.

The burden of good government starts with each and every one of us holding our elected officials accountable by not being silent. Like I said, evil can only prevail if good men and women do nothing.

Regardless of your political point of view, I encourage you to start looking at what your government is doing to you. Not for you, but to you. Government is not serving the people and longer, we are serving the government. I’m sorry, but our Constitution specifically doesn’t provide for that. Please join me as we begin the process of holding our government accountable by not being silent.

Posted in Federal Government, Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »