The Governors v. The Senators

Not since John F. Kennedy has a United States Senator been elected to the White House. (Former) Governor Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy, although it seems unlikely after Super Tuesday that he could concievably win anyway. Ditto Mike Huckabee, who is staying in the race, but for how much longer, who knows. Therefore, it will ultimately be John McCain going up against whomever the Democrats select as their nominee, both of whom are sitting U.S. Senators themselves.

An article (Reader's Blog) in the NY Times ruminated over the reasons why governors have more often been the elected nominees over U.S. Senators when it comes to the general elections. Some of the responses to the article argued, logically, that governors are the analog to presidents at the the state level and therefore have the most applicable experience to bring to the Oval Office. This is true, and in some ways it's a shame on the Democratic side, that Bill Richardson didn't advance further. Not only is he a sitting Governor in a border state (New Mexico) with its southern neighbor, but was Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, an Ambassador, and Congressman. Therefore, he has important experience as the chief executive of a state, experience as a federal cabinet secretary on one of the most important issues that grips the U.S. and the world, experience as a diplomat, and experience as someone who knows how to draft legislation. The only thing Bill Richardson could add on to this resume is a stint on the bench. But enough of my Richardson digression for the moment.

One of the comments I read noted that Senators are "legislators" and Presidents/Governors are "implementers". This is of course true in part, but simplistic. Governors and presidents oversee a variety of executive agencies, that involve to be sure, traditional executive functions. These would include, law enforcement, border security, tax collection, issuing visas and permits, and directing the armed forces. Yet they also have legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Administrative agencies produce regulations, that have the same force and effect as Congressional statutes; they are law. When disputes arise, for example when someone is denied Social Security benefits, an Administrative Law Judge hears evidence and provides an opinion. All this is overseen by the executive branches. So the point is, governors and presidents do more than just implement and execute. There is more complexity to the job and involves an understanding of law-making and adjudication.

Although a Senator, who has never served as a chief executive, may lack a certain type of experience, s/he may still be able to bring his/her legislative strengths and insights to the legislative components of the job. Although, the President or Governor, rarely, I imagine, actually do any of the actual drafting of regulations. However, they may take more direct involvement in reviewing treaties and executive orders.

The job of a chief executive, however, is more than just being a good administrator. It's the direction that they can give to the country. And to be sappy for a moment, a certain vision, whether in the Obama, Reagan or Kennedy sense. It may explain why someone like Richardson, who clearly has the pedigree for the job, got see easily cast aside (in addition to the fact that Obama and Clinton had loads more money). Every now and again, for better or for worse, certain politicians come around and electrify. Of course, one would hope that it is more than smoke and mirrors, and that there is a real plan and experience behind the vision.

One thing is for sure, there is an awful lot of excitement surrounding Senator Obama's run for nomination, and it can be evidenced by the money that is pouring in to his campaign coffers. Senator Clinton just acknowledged that she had to loan her campaign 5 million dollars to assist in her bid. There is money which is reserved for the general election and cannot be touched. In any event, Obama seems to be blazing a trail and will likely use it to fight hard to drill into Clinton's delegate lead over the next few weeks and months.

One can't predict where this race is going to end up for sure. Pundits and polls have both been wrong a number of times since the primaries began, and I am neither a pundit nor a pollster, although a bit of a political junkie. But if this Senator-led election proves to be a once every 5 decades type event, perhaps it will go to the one Senator who seems to electrify so many. Or who knows maybe it will go to the very knowledgable Senator Clinton or the Senator "straight talk express" McCain who has the social conservative base of the Republican party threatening revolt.

Time will tell.

Nader's 2008 Presidential Dive

You can just hear Democrats letting out that groan. Here comes Ralph, again. He has announced that he is setting up an exploratory committee to examine the possibility of his running for the US presidency. Undoubtedly there are probably numerous Republicans thrilled about this news. For my part, I have mixed feelings about Ralph running again.

First, the positives. I believe Nader adds greater diversity to the overall discussion. I do not believe, particularly in a society that believes so much as the US does in open markets and competition, that Democratic and Republican candidates should have some de facto monopoly in running for the White House. I think he would stress a more vigourous approach to environmental issues, same-sex marriages, civil rights, and to be sure consumers' rights and health care, than what we have seen by any of the candidates so far. Certainly, in terms of tax policy, Ralph would have some relevant ideas on corporate welfare. Why shouldn't American voters get that opportunity to hear their options?

But now, I have to ask the question, who are we kidding? Most Americans are not or not likely prepared to vote for an independent third party candidate like Nader, even if they share his views in part. A couple of reasons why. First, Democratic voters don't want to risk another Republican taking the White House by supporting Ralph. Second, and this is what I will spend the rest of my time focusing on, why should we trust that Ralph would know what he's doing once he got into the White House.

As far as I can tell, Nader has been a fantastic public advocate on a variety of issues. He's far from being just a talker. Yet, has he ever run for any other office and for that matter served as either a legislator (either state or federal) or as part of the executive branch (governor or cabinet secretary)? From my review, I can't seem to find any evidence of this.

Now let me state at the outset, I don't believe that merely being elected, or having held office, means that you are automatically qualified sit in the oval office. The current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is a clear example that just living in a Governor's mansion doesn't give you the necessary insight to run the country. But those for whom the elevator does reach the top floor, such experience can provide an interesting laboratory to test their theories. If they work, this undoubtedly would bring to such a candidate a significant degree of gravitas. I think with Ralph's saaviness, he could take it far.

There are many things that vex Ralph. To name but a couple of things, corporate power and influence; the negligence of Congress for not having impeached George Bush. Why doesn't he run for the U.S. Senate or House and try to make change on these issues through campaign finance reform? Nader has recently criticized Barack Obama on CNN for not having pushed to have George Bush impeached, particularly since Obama was a constitutional scholar. I note parenthetically that Ralph doesn't apparently mind getting his message across through corporate media. But moreover if Ralph believed that George Bush should have been impeached, why didn't he run for the Senate in the past few years, and try to push the impeachment agenda. This is not to suggest that he doesn't have a point about Obama not leading the charge. Perhaps Obama and others should have led the charge impeaching Bush and Cheney. Yet, I see no reason why Ralph could not have tried to do the same thing.

Then there's running in a gubernatorial race. Many probably suspect that Nader's policies might seem too "liberal" for the majority of the US population and might not be "practical" enough to be implemented. A surefire way of proving such critics wrong would be to run a state (find even the most liberal state you can imagine) and prove that he can run it successfully. He could then enter a presidential race with a certain degree of credibility.

Ralph Nader can do a great deal for the United States. He would serve his cause well by advancing his platform at the local level or in the U.S. Congress. Perhaps it's time Ralph suited up.

Same-Sex Marriages, Judicial Nominations and the Presidential Election

The electoral race is heating up. On the democratic side, U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent much time recently courting various constituencies in their bids to secure their party's nominations. One group that has received little attention as of late it seems is the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBTs) communities. Amongst the many issues that concern Gays and Lesbians in particular, are the numerous discriminatory laws that exist ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages; in addition to state constitutional bans against same-sex marriages). Particularly, and understandably, they should be concerned about what the next Democratic President would do about these issues. For the purposes of this posting I will restrict myself to issues of same-sex marriages.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have stated that they would veto any federal constitutional amendment that would come across their desk. They are both in support of civil unions that confer all the rights and privileges of marriage, although not marriage itself. Apparently for many people, civil unions are a reasonable compromise, but same-sex marriage is a bridge too far.

With the exception of a proposed federal constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriages, there is little that any of the Presidential candidates can do directly about same-sex marriages or civil unions for the most part. These are issues that governed under state law. State laws that discriminate against minorities such as the GLBT community, still have to answer to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However for reasons which I will discuss in another posting, Equal Protection unfortunately isn't all that equal under current jurisprudence.

This leads me to the importance of judicial appointments which has similarly been whisked off the list of important debate topics. The President appoints federal justices, including those on the United States Supreme Court, who then have to be approved by the Senate. As the President cannot directly overturn a state constitutional law prohibiting same-sex marriages, s/he can appoint justices that will interpret the Equal Protection Clause and any other constitutional provisions that apply in a manner that is consistent with the intent of equal protection - to strike down laws that amount to invidious discrimination against a discrete minority.

Appointed (rather than elected) judges are important protectors of individual rights and discriminatory laws. They can issue unpopular decisions without having to worry about being removed from the bench by a bigoted electorate seeking retribution for upholding civil rights.

In recent years, many states have passed constitutional amendments seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages. These may end up being challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause, and if so, the case may rise all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus the issue of who sits on the federal bench, at any given time is of great importance (keep in mind, the case could be brought before state courts and who sits on the bench there is also of importance).

Fundamentally, the judicial nominees that either Senator Clinton or Obama nominate (assuming they win the general election), will have a profound impact for years to come. Therefore it is important to discuss what types of judges these candidates will seek to nominate, not only for issues dealing with discrimination against the GLBT community, but a whole variety of civil liberties.

If only CNN would consider such issues rather than asking Senator Obama whether he agrees with Toni Morrison that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. A substantive issue for the ages.