I've learned a new word this week: quanked. It means being in a state of extreme fatigue, as in " I packed up the moving van today, and I'm totally quanked!"
It’s taken a week of stringing
together moments of lucidity in an otherwise pneumonia-quanked haze to get this
out.
'Tis the season for our national
political pageant to enter the swimsuit…er…'debate' competition
In the days that follow a debate, we
hang on the pronouncements of Nate Silver and other members of the punditocracy.
Their statistics are based on their own
models, on relatively small polling samples. Their job is to measure public
opinion by telling the public what the public thinks is important. They shape
opinion by choosing what questions to ask and who to ask.
Frankly, I don’t care whether
someone ‘looks’ presidential. I don’t care
about previous statistics on the influence height has on ‘electability.’ Age
and gender are not litmus tests for me.
The next 12 months are a test for
who would be the best candidate for President from the Democratic Party. How do we as voters measure that? First, we have to have a sense of what we each
want a President to do, and as important, not do. Here are my own opinions, my own resume requirements.
A
President is responsible for:
- Acting as the international face of the United States
- Conducting foreign policy with the State Department and Congress
- Negotiating and upholding treaties in coordination with Congress
- Commanding the troops following Congressional authorization
- Making nominations for judicial, ambassadorial and executive positions
- Providing leadership to the Party
A
President is not responsible for:
- Crafting legislation – this is the job of Congress
- Declaring war – this is the job of Congress
- Conducting unilateral foreign policy – this is shared with Congress
With
these qualifications in mind, my opinions on a candidate center on:
Is the candidate consistent in his/her opinions and positions, or do they vary with political winds? Is he/she trustworthy?
Have
the candidate’s positions on foreign policy, particularly military aid and
troop deployment demonstrated respect for the sovereignty of other nations and
for international law?
Have
the candidate’s positions on treaties, particularly trade, demonstrated respect
for the environment and workers’ rights?
Has
the candidate opposed unilateral presidential military deployments in the past,
and upheld the role of Congress in authorizing military force?
Does
the candidate have experience in nominating or approving candidates for high
office? Have his/her nominations or approvals been based on merit and
experience?
Has
the candidate provided leadership to the Party in advancing the traditional constituencies
and ideals of the party, such as rights of women, minorities and workers,
environmental protection, regulation and restraint of business. In other words,
has the course of the debate moved in the direction of these ideals because of
the ideals the candidate espouses, and the way in which he/she expresses them?
and the compromise...
Does
the candidate have a history of successfully advancing legislation that
supports these ideals? If so, and the
candidate is currently serving in the US Senate or House, despite other qualifications, the candidate may be
more valuable staying in his/her current position.
I
encourage you to come up with your own list, and to trust your own values and
instincts rather than the polls and pundits.
Next
up:
Informed
opinion is vital, but how do you influence the discussion on who the nominee should
be?
