The Buckingham Herald Tribblog

In the last eight years, this is what mavericks have gotten us:

Who needs more of this?

John McCain has called himself and been known as a maverick for years. He likes the moniker because it is supposed to make him look as though he thinks for himself and is tied to no special interest.

But a maverick’s gut-based decisions are not what the country needs now.

One of his first decisions as a Maverick Presidential Candidate was the choice of the “Alaskan Maverick” Sarah Palin. Her reaction to being asked was, of course, a thoughtless, gut-based, “I’m Ready!”

When asked in a town-hall-style meeting how she would handle foreign affairs if she were suddenly thrust into the presidency, the vice presidential candidate, who recently got her first passport, said, “I’m ready.” This was even before her chats with heads-of-state at the UN last week.

She could have said that she planned on surrounding herself with the best minds out there. She could have said that she was already setting up a foreign affairs task force to bring her up to speed. She could have said any number of things that would have made her sound thoughtful. Instead, she—like all mavericks—has replaced thoughtful decision making with ego and hubris.

Next, Maverick John McCain suspended his campaign and called off the presidential debate to run to Washington to “fix” the economy, which he had never really paid much attention to, only to arrive in Washington, do little, and ultimately fail to bring his OWN party together behind their own economic plan.

Shoot-from-the-hip decisions miss the target too often. Give us a president who will take aim before pulling the trigger.

Labels: bush, candidate, economy, maverick, mccain, palin, president

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 9:21 AM 2 comments

About 40 percent of registered voters in Arlington cast ballots yesterday, overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama, (D), and John McCain, (R), as candidates for the presidency.

Thirty-two percent of Buckingham’s registered voters headed out to the polls, voting for Democrats 948 times and Republicans 161 times.

In the Buckingham Precinct, Obama won 573 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 370. Other Democrats who are no longer seeking the nomination also won a handful of votes. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards each won 2 votes, Bill Richardson received 1. Joe Biden did not get any on the Democratic side.

For the Republicans who received votes in Buckingham, John McCain took 115 votes, while Mike Huckabee took 21; Ron Paul, the only other person still seeking the Republican nomination, won 10 votes. Other Republicans, who no longer are seeking the nomination, also won a handful of votes. Mitt Romney won 14; Rudy Giulianni received 1 vote. Fred Thompson did not receive any votes.

With 44 percent of registered voters casting ballots in Arlington Forest, the 784 votes cast for Democrats balanced a little more evenly between the rivals than they had in Buckingham, but Mr. Obama still came out on top, 445 to 325. Other candidates no longer running won votes, as well. Mr. Edwards took 6 votes, Mr. Richardson won 5, while Mr. Kucinich had 3. Mr. Biden did not receive any votes in Arlington Forest.

Voters opted for the Republican primary 172 times, and Mr. McCain won handily in Arlington Forest, taking 105 votes to Mr. Huckabee’s 32. Mr. Paul won 19 votes. Other candidates who won votes but are no longer in the race, included Mr. Romney, 11 votes; Mr. Thompson, 3 votes; and Mr. Giuliani, 2 votes.

Precinct Totals of Votes Cast reported on the county's web site.

Labels: election, president, primary, vote

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 8:49 AM 0 comments

There was a bit of a line this morning at Culpeper Gardens where I cast my vote this morning, so I pulled out my ipod to pass the time in line. One of the poll workers told me it was "against the law" to listen to an iPod at the polls as I could be "getting outside instructions from someone." I failed to see how this was possible with a self contained mp3 player and asked if he was joking. He was not. Nevertheless, I put it away, but I and several others in line questioned whether this was really true. I looked the list of things you can't do posted outside the polling place, and all it says is that you can't try to influence anyone else's vote. Nothing prohibiting electronic devices inside the polling place. It would be one thing if I were talking on my cell phone inside the polling place but I wasn't.

I'm tempted to call the Arlington Board of Elections and ask them if I have time today. Have you ever heard of this? It sounds preposterous to me.

Dan Falsenheld

Dan, I called for you, and spoke with Jack Nickerson at the county's Office of Voter Registration.

“You can’t have a cell phone or anyting once you’re inside the polling place," he said, adding that the election official probably did the right thing, shutting down all electronic devices since it is tough to tell which transmit information, and which are just players.

Listening while standing in line outside would probably be fine, Mr. Nickerson said, but once you're inside, the head phones have to come off. --ST

Labels: election, president, primary

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 10:56 AM 1 comments

You, (and everyone else), have missed the biggest story of this election cycle.

This season has brought out the worst in our countrymen. Voters in both parties have been willing to stand and support, (or oppose), candidates because of the candidates' Race, Religion, Age, and Gender.

The Democrats have an excuse.

In as much as the two leading Candidates are very close on the issues, choosing one over the other because you want someone who looks like you, is not so terribly bad. That said, Bill Richardson, (maybe the best of all the candidates), and John Edwards, were knocked out because neither of them had a block of voters who supported them because they were men.

(Richardson was Hispanic, I bet some folks voted against him for his National Origin.)

The Republicans have no excuse. Mitt Romney had the most impressive resume of anyone running.

Sadly, he lost not because of his beliefs, nor his experience. While almost all Mormons voted for him because he was a Mormon, many of the Christians voted against him purely out of their bigotry against Mormons.

McCain won not because he was well liked in the Republican party, but because he was neither a Mormon, nor a solid Christian. (Yes, non-believers quickly took the opportunity to vote against believers.)

Huckabee is winning states even though he has said some crazy things about Gay Marriage. This guy is a great speaker; however, he is not fit to win the Republican nomination.

The Republicans are about to nominate a guy they hate--because their religious bigotry did not allow them to vote for the guy who came most closely to supporting their views.

McCain has no chance to win in November. (That is, unless we can win the War, and get most of our troops back before November.)

If the economy goes as I expect it will, and if we are in deep economic trouble in October, (as I believe we will be), Romney's experience and superior, (to all the other candidates), business knowledge might have carried him over the top.

This is a time when we need a president who understands trade, and the economy.

Romney is the only candidate from either party who understands how the economy works.

Should he have been nominated? I do to know. Could he have won in November? Even if the economy was the major issue, it is very doubtful he could have won against either Democrat.

However, the fact that he lost because of religious bigotry, is disturbing--VERY DISTURBING!

Mick Pulliam

Labels: politics, president, primary

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 4:37 PM 2 comments

Therefore, I’m willing to put my money up front today, before tomorrow’s vote, as throwing my left-leaning attitudes behind the nominee in late October will be as useful as teats on a bull. --ST

I do not really see the difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton in policy. I have read through much of both of their web sites. I have read other articles. Watched video.

So it really does come down to two things for me, as the national media says it has for many people around the country.

The first is leadership style, which plays into the second, the experience and background of the two.

Mr. Obama is the unification candidate this time around, the guy who will talk with and work with everyone until he gets the job done. Mr. Obama’s continual message of hope and change sounds nice, but can all the talk and discussion win the support to actually make it happen? A person with great ideas but an inability to garner the votes to see them through is nearly as bad as a person with lousy ideas.

Ms. Clinton is the combatant candidate this year. She will knock heads and take names, forcing people to vote with her. Ms. Clinton is so despised by the far right (and much of the near right) that I wonder if she has the ability to change people’s minds, find the consensus and shove the legislation through. A person with great ideas but an inability to garner the votes to see them through is nearly as bad as a person with lousy ideas.

Both styles can work. At times, the bully-pulpit stick puts a recalcitrant representative into line where the carrot does little good.

Still, I tend to be a carrot-styled negotiator myself, when I need to negotiate (though my children might say otherwise).

But then I think of inexperienced leadership and President Bush. His inexperience as a leader (even as a businessman he lost money) I thought less of when he first took office in 2001, but his lack of historical understanding, and his lack of a basic understanding of human nature has hurt this country in ways it will take years to repair.

But Mr. Bush’s lack of experience as a successful leader is not the real problem. The real problem is that he just does not think. What he lacks in deliberation over issues, he replaces with arrogance.

Although I do not believe Mr. Obama will be as stupid as Mr. Bush, I do wonder what pitfalls he will encounter if he were to take the reins of the country. This is the problem, too, with having Senators running for election. Although Ms. Clinton has been in politics at all levels for years, she has never been the sole person in charge. Neither has Mr. Obama. The Senate is committees, not executives, and the Presidency requires someone who can be an executive.

But a smart person, who admits mistakes (like drug-taking) will also be able to make compromises, I believe. If you do not always have to be right, then you can see how other people feel, how others understand the world. This is what the country needs, and I think Mr. Obama will best give that. Ms. Clinton strikes me more as the one to hold the truncheon, the type not to listen to political foes (although I have heard from friends in northern New York she is an excellent listener on the campaign trail).

I will be voting for Mr. Obama tomorrow.

On the Republican side, vote for McCain. He has the brains and experience, and has never once said our Constitution needs to be Evangelized.

Labels: campaign, endorsement, politics, president

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 1:45 PM 3 comments

The most famous names that make their way onto the list include Ted Leonsis. He wrote checks at $2,300 each from the Washington Capitals’ world headquarters atop the Ballston Common Mall parking garage (it, not his house, is in 22203). The AOL Executive and Capitals owner seems to have been a good prognosticator, as well, donating only to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

Also on the list: Richard A. Clarke, a long-time government bureaucrat who apologized in front of the 9/11 Commission to the families of the dead and was castigated by the Bush Administration for his testimony. He gave $2,300 to Barack Obama.

Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor “Elly” Smeal made the list, donating $3,200 to Ms. Clinton. Others include: Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution ($350 to Mr. Obama); Michael R. Nelson (IBM Executive and Georgetown University professor) gave $3,650 to Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Bill Richardson; Paul Hazen, president/CEO of the National Cooperative Business Assoc. gave $4,600 to Ms. Clinton.

Each icon/person on the map--displayed in no particular order--represents one candidate. Click each one to get more information.

View Larger Map

The numbers above represent donations to presidential candidates from the 22203 ZIP code (outlined on the map). Each icon of a person represents a candidate who received donations and filed Federal Election Committee returns during 2007.

The number of “total donations” is less any donations that were returned to the donor. “Avg. Donation” is simply the total donated amount divided by the total number of donations. Although the maximum donation a person can give to a candidate in one election is $2,300, some of the donations are larger than that. It could be that they were donating from their corporation/group, or that the campaign had not gotten around to giving back the excess.

To see the numbers yourself, click here. Once you get to the FEC's page, change "Donor Name" to "ZIP Code" in the drop-down menu, and you're off! If you would like my calculations or a nice pdf of all the info, email me: heraldtrib@gmail.com --ST

Labels: election, politics, president, primary

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 12:18 PM 0 comments

States with few electoral votes would be in the first two groups. They’d have their fights on the First and Last Tuesday of February; I think in here we’d place the “single-digit” states, the ones with 9 or fewer electoral votes, your Alabamas (9), your D.C.s (3), your Maines, New Hampshires and Wyomings (4, 4, 3).

That’s 30 states, or 15 per Big Tuesday, or 158 electoral votes, total. Those two groups would be geographically diverse (mix New Hampshire with Wyoming and D.C.).

But that’s not the best part of my idea. The best is that the 15 that go on the First Tuesday this year go on the Last Tuesday of February four years from now. They flip and flop like that every cycle. (And maybe we’d have to divvy it up into three groups of 10 and do it over six weeks, instead of four.)

Your March states would include your 10s and 20s, to 21, or 233 of the electoral votes. That’s 17 states, from Pennsylvania (21), to Arizona (10), Michigan (17) and Massachusetts (12). Again, divide them into two groups with Second and Fourth Tuesdays in March. Again, you flip which group goes first every election cycle.

That leaves the biggest four: Florida , New York, Texas and California (27+31+34+55= 147 electoral votes). They go all in one swoop, or we could even break them up (Fla./Calif. and N.Y./Texas) and do the same in April as we did in February and March.

See, I can totally understand Florida’s exasperation. Why should some waitress in New Hampshire get to meet every presidential candidate since Johnson, while a similar waiter in Florida never meets any? And why always New Hampshire? Why not Wyoming, Alabama or some other smallish state? Let the hash-slingers of Delaware meet the next Leader of the Free World for once.

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire, every year, get to force one or two people out of the race before Virginia even gets a chance at him or her?

Florida, in my little outline, would still come up in the last batch of primaries. But I’ve been thinking a few things on this. The first is that Florida probably wouldn’t feel quite so badly if they knew that more people had had a shot at the candidates, and second that a head-to-head bout like the Clinton/Obama meet might still make it down to Florida. With the candidates actually having to go to many different states and think about a full platform (not just “ethanol is the Holy Grail of American Energy Policy, Iowans”) they might just hit on things the larger states like Florida care about.

The other option, if the Big Four get snooty, is to mix them in with some of the other mid-level states. Make the middle group 10 to 20 electoral votes, and 21 to 55 in the final, or something like that. And I’m not against the idea of mixing it up even more, with some double-digit states in with the single-digit ones, or allowing one of the bigger groups to be on one of February's Super Tuesdays in some sort of rotation.

There are other ideas out there like this, no doubt, and I know I’m not the first to ask the question of why New Hampshire gets all the luck. But why don’t the major parties do this (other than they don’t read the HeraldTrib)? They don’t care if we all have a voice. It’s set up to keep the powerful in power.

Don’t believe me? Look at Virginia Republicans. The Republicans will vote in a caucus to make Jim Gilmore their candidate for Senate, keeping Tom Davis at arm’s length. That will get them the candidate the higher-ups in the party want (but boy is it going to be a blood bath. Warner will tear him to shreds come November.)

And I’d love to say the Democrats are better in all this, but you know they’re not.

None of the Big Three Democrats have actually campaigned in Uppity Michigan because Michigan went against the party and bumped their primary to yesterday. That's what wanting to have a fair shake gets you--nobody.

Michigan Democratic leaders don't seem to care, however, if the Democrat I heard on NPR is right. They're doing this as a protest to change the primary idiocracy. I'm with you, Michigan, I'm with you!

Labels: election, president, primary

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 9:23 PM 0 comments