3rd Ticket, Anyone?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

America Elect
Are you so disgusted with the Democratic and Republican parties that you long for another choice on your 2012 presidential ballot? Of course, there will be fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians, but would you like to see a centrist ticket with a real chance to win?

Good news! A new group called Americans Elect (AE) intends to select a presidential nominee by a nationwide on-line vote and put him on the ballot in all fifty states. The organization, headquartered on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, was founded by mutli-millionaire Peter Ackerman (formerly of Drexel Burnham Lambert) and has 148 employees. AE has already raised over $20 million from just 50 wealthy backers (1). Its board includes former NJ Gov. Christie Whitman and former FBI Director William Webster. NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, who says that the major party candidates are not confronting the real issues, actively supports the group.

AE is now rounding up millions of signatures on petitions to establish AE as a recognized party in all states, so that its ticket will appear on all state ballots. Over 2 million signatures are already in hand, and about a million more will be needed.

Anyone can register as a “delegate” to the AE “virtual convention” in June of next year on the AE website below. In the first round of voting, you can nominate and vote for any legally qualified American to be President of the United States. (2) The top six candidates in this round will be asked to choose a nominee for Vice President, who must not be a member of the same political party, to assure a “bi-partisan ticket.” Then delegates will vote among the six tickets; if any one ticket obtains a majority, it will be certified as that of the AE Party for state ballots. (Otherwise, there will be run-off among the top three, and if necessary another run-off between the top two, tickets to secure a majority.)

Although most democracies in the world have more than two parties with real clout, the history of third party presidential campaigns in the US is not encouraging. Since the Civil War, every president has been either a Democrat or a Republican, and only once did any other party even finish second. (3) The last third-party candidate to receive any electoral votes was Alabama Gov. George Wallace (American Independent), who garnered 46 of them in 1968. Ross Perot, who spent about $63 million of his own money in 1992, took 19% of the popular vote nationwide, but no electoral votes. Our “winner takes all” method of awarding electoral votes is especially disadvantageous to new parties.

Given the long odds against victory, I doubt that any prominent people will participate in the AE Final Six run-off. The requirement that the candidates for president and vice-president be from different parties will effectively prevent AE from endorsing one of the major party tickets. (4) Some AE supporters are touting NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an independent presidential candidate, but he has said he is not interested, and I believe him. A more likely nominee would Texas Rep. Ron Paul (whose supporters have the tech savvy to game the AE nominating process), but accepting the AE nomination would put his son Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) in an impossible dilemma, so I doubt that even he would accept.

Somebody is going to win the AE nomination, but he probably will not be a strong candidate, and there is no reason to believe that he will be a centrist. The AE nominee will not win, but just might siphon off enough votes from a major-party ticket to swing some close states the other way as Ralph Nader did in 2000. He just might be back!

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————————-

(1) Third Wheel in the New Republic, Nov. 17, 2011, page 8.

(2) www.AmericansElect.org.

(3) In 1912 Former President Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party (“Bullmoose”) ticket and finished between NJ Gov. Woodrow Wilson and then President William Howard Taft.

(4) Having a vice president from another party was tried in 1796 and 1864, and turned out badly both times.

——————————————————————————-

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Israel Is The Issue

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)

“(Obama has been) throwing Israel under the bus!” Former Gov. Mitt Romney. (1)

“The Obama administration has appeased the Arab street…” Gov. Rick Perry (1)

These candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination have pounced on one of President Obama’s major vulnerabilities: his tepid record of support for Israel. Since Evangelical Christians are strong backers of the Jewish state, both candidates are also appealing to this group, which can play a significant role in GOP primaries.

But are they right about Obama? Although the President has consistently supported and approved aid to Israel (as promised by previous presidents) and gave it the Iron Dome missile-defense system ($200 billion paid by the US), Obama has tilted American policy toward the Palestinian cause three ways:

1. The Cairo Speech. Obama declared American ties to Israel “unbreakable,” but also promised the creation of a Palestinian state on land won by Israel in 1967. Since this promise was not contingent upon any concessions by the Arab side, the Palestinians have held out for their maximalist demands, assured as they were of American support.

2. The 1967 Borders. The President called for negotiations based upon the pre-Six Day War borders, with “swaps” of some land. But the Palestine Authority has executed Arabs for selling land to Jews, so it will never voluntarily transfer any land (especially in or near Jerusalem, a city holy to Islam) to Israel—so there will be no “swaps.” And Israel will not withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, which the present government deems indefensible.

3. Jerusalem. Eastern Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in 1968, and it includes the Old City and Temple Mount, where Jews intend to rebuild the Beth HaMikdash (Temple) in Messianic times. There is virtually no chance than any Israeli government, now or in the foreseeable future, will cede any substantial part of this city to the Palestinians. In 2008 Barack Obama assured the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that Jerusalem would be the “undivided capital of Israel”, but subsequently complained incessantly every time Israel has even proposed building housing in East Jerusalem. This has encouraged the Palestinians to stiffen their demands about “settlements” in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As a result, Jews are abandoning Obama, who garnered about 78% of their votes in 2008. The Republican victory in Anthony Weiner’s former congressional district, perhaps the most Jewish in the nation, is a sign that Jewish antipathy toward Obama is strong enough to sink other Democratic candidates. Without a big Jewish vote, Obama cannot carry New York in 2012, and without New York’s electoral votes, Obama cannot be re-elected. (No Democrat since Truman has won the presidency without New York.)

Even if he orders that the US veto a Security Council resolution recognizing the State of Palestine later this month, it may be too late for Barack Obama to win back crucial Jewish support. If he is the Democratic nominee, he will not only lose the presidency, but may also drag down other Democratic nominees for the Senate and House with him. So, if Obama really cares about health care, jobs and taxes, he should decline to seek the Democratic nomination for another term, so that a more popular Democrat (probably Hillary Clinton) can be nominated and go on to win. President Hayes declined to run in 1880, and his party kept the presidency. (2)

Gerald S Glazer

—————————————————————–

(1) Associated Press, Sept. 21, 2011.

(2) The Republicans nominated James Garfield, who won. Hayes was the last president to decline to seek renomination after only four years in the White House.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)