| Sunday, January 13, 2008 |
It was always my impression that the press was supposed to report on the news, not unduly influence it - especially when it comes to presidential elections. Judging by the election coverage for the first 3 primaries (2 if you actually listen to these media outlets), I couldn't possibly have been more wrong.
What we have been served to date, in terms of election coverage, has been deplorable. Long before the first ballots were cast in any state, candidates were already being written off. "Expert commentators" from each of the major political news outlets were touting the inevitability of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy and declaring Huckabee, Paul, Romney and others as inconsequential also-rans.
As if it weren't bad enough to provide inadequate coverage of these "marginal" candidates initially, the press has greatly compounded the severity of their sins by oversimplifying the primary process, and in doing-so, prematurely predicting the demise of viable campaigns.
Primaries with multiple legitimate candidates are all about delegate accumulation - NOT about "winning" states by a small percentage.
The press has failed to make this distinction in the Republican primaries and caucuses to date. After the Iowa caucuses, the headlines read that Huckabee's win could spell doom for Romney. This was despite the fact that Romney scored a quarter of the republican vote, nearly twice that of his next closest competitors.
In fact, through three Republican primaries, Romney has been the only candidate to manage at least 20 percent support in each contest. He presently leads the delegate count for the Republican primaries and handily beat his competitors in the Wyoming caucuses (which for some reason, the mainstream press completely ignores).
In fairness, Romney presently faces a major challenge - as do all Republican candidates - from John McCain... but the magnitude of that challenge is greatly amplified by the inappropriately influential press coverage that is being pushed at the American public.
McCain's New Hampshire "victory" (which earned him 7 delegates to Romney's 4 and Hucabee's 1) has given him substantial momentum leading into Michigan, South Carolina, and Nevada. In these 3 states, people are being influenced by the media statements that McCain is now the front-runner, that Huckabee is a strong possible candidate, and that Romney's campaign is on life support... but these are, in some part self-fulfilling prophecies. If you repeat the same conjecture long enough and loud enough, it will be taken as fact. It unfortunately forces still-viable candidates to fight an increasingly uphill battle to save their candidacies.
So my plea to the press is simple: Report the facts, supply analysis if you feel you must, but DON'T tell us who will win the general election and whose candidacy is finished before 1 percent of America has made its voice heard.
Tagged: 2008 presidential election, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republican Primaries, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani
| Saturday, December 22, 2007 |
Mitt Romney has a lot going for him - he's got loads of charisma, a well-defined record of achievement, an enviable bank account, and a great head of hair. Too bad he can't stop lying.
First, he got caught in a lie about when and why he changed his stance regarding abortion. Then he was a lifelong hunter who never owned a gun... or a hunting license... who only ever hunted twice. Now, he's being called to the carpet for stating that he watched his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr.
The historicity of the event itself is in question - the accuracy of the statement that Romney witnessed it is not.
Now for the worst part of this whole deal. Mitt Romeny doesn't even know jack about sports. How about this gem: "When we say, 'I saw the Patriots win the World Series,' it doesn't necessarily mean you were there."
Priceless. Honestly, I like the guy a lot. It just seems like he's trying so hard to give the perfect answer that he ends up putting his foot in his mouth. Stop trying to be perfect and start trying to be honest.
Tagged: 2008 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney Lies, Republican
| Sunday, October 07, 2007 |
Saturday Night Live is always better around election time. Last night, they blasted Fred Thompson in a particularly funny piece. Enjoy:
Tagged: 2008 election, fred thompson, saturday night live, snl, video
| Thursday, August 09, 2007 |
Prior military service invariably becomes a topic of discussion during any presidential election, and it quite often elicits some of the strongest emotional responses from the voting public. This election season is no different, as is evident in this article, where Glen Johnson (AP) documents the concern of Rachel Griffiths, an Iowa citizen with family serving in Iraq, that none of Mitt Romney's five sons are serving in the armed forces.
This issue seems to always represent one of two concerns on behalf of the citizen raising it - either they are contending that no valid basis exists for a candidate to take a hawk-ish stance in foreign affairs, or they are effectively pointing out a class separation distinction. The underlying statement is, "You're privileged - you think you are too good for your family to serve."
Ultimately, it has to be one of these two things, and I contend that neither are legitimate concerns in selecting an executive leader.
Consider the first - that not having family in the military negatively impacts ones ability to lead the country in a time of war (or to support a war politically). Having family in the armed forces doesn't magically endow a candidate with a better foreign policy capacity. Further, the President's duty is not to be involved with the micro-level planning of military engagements. He oversees the macro direction of the war. His function is largely not tactical, but rather extends to shaping overall foreign policy, while relying upon military leaders to execute the operations. He must be able to absorb information from advisors and leaders and base decisions upon that data.
As for Romney's sons - the armed forces aren't for everyone - and beyond that, it's not like the candidates forcibly make the decision for their children as to what their career path will be. It is patently absurd to crucify a candidate because their children have chosen to pursue another vocation.
We need to move beyond these "surface issues" - the items that look sexy and make for good ratings and discuss the ideologies that drive the candidates. Military service means less than foreign policy experience. Having relatives in the army shouldn't enhance a candidates political stature.
Can I buy some real news coverage? Who's going to dive into what really matters? Step up to the plate, American press.
Tagged: 2008 election, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, military service, presidential election
| Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |
Mass media coverage of the 2008 presidential primary campaigns has been shameful at best, with an increasing trend at editorializing all matters, as opposed to merely reporting on them. The result is the marginalization of candidates who the media fails to declare as front-runners (Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc). What's even more shameful, however, is how one "candidate" has been delaying the official start of his campaign to take advantage of that same media group.
Running in the national polls with better than 20 percent support, sitting in 2nd place, it doesn't make sense for Fred Thompson to run a silent campaign, but on the sidelines he sits. Why doesn't he capitalize on the momentum that presently exists by thrusting himself fully into the spotlight, I wondered. And then it struck me.
Declaring his candidacy wouldn't so much thrust him into the spotlight as it would limit his exposure. You see, as it stands now, Thompson benefits from his sideline position in many ways with the media. First off, he's not officially a candidate, so his views and record aren't examined as closely as other candidates. More importantly, however, he gets added face time in the evening viewing hours with reruns of his Lawand Order episodes appearing.
Until he declares himself a candidate, his episodes will continue to appear on television, helping him to increase his name recognition and celebrity status. It's a shame that Thompson is comfortable gaming the system and side-stepping scrutiny, while others, like Paul and Huckabee are marginalized for trying to make a genuine difference.
...but I guess these days you don't ever have to declare for the media to become your lapdog - you just have to be interesting and draw ratings. Who cares about substance and fact?
Tagged: 2008 elections, bill richardson, fred thompson, joe biden, mike huckabee, presidential election, ron paul
| Tuesday, August 07, 2007 |
Rudy Giuliani is not just the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. He's also the front-runner for whitehouseorbust.com's most annoying participant in the Republican debates. Read on to find out the most annoying prhases and behavor.
1 - I cleaned up New York, I can clean up Washington
This phrase (or one like it) has been uttered several times by Giuliani, and it's a great line... if he were running for MAYOR OF DC! Somebody needs to give Rudy a map or send him a memo. NYC < USA
2 - I don't know the answer to that... let's talk about how being Mayor of NY means I'm tough on terror.
Obviously, this isn't a direct quote... but it's close. Whenever he's in a bind, Giuliani plays the America's Mayor card and appeals to emotions rather than reason. Debates are supposed to be logical discussions - it's embarrassing to watch the man pander like this.
3 - Blatantly Dodging Questions
I know the game. I can handle a bit of hemming and hawing while a candidate tries to develop an answer, but flat out refusing to answer a question (even through deflecting humor) is inappropriate for a debate. How hard is it to share a mistake that helped you grow personally?
4 - Talking Out of Turn
This might be a tad nit-picky since other candidates are violators of this rule, but Rudy's a frequent offender. He butted in to chastise Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy philosophy and also stepped right over Mitt Romney to answer a question in which he was clearly the candidate of secondary interest as the query was posed. The worst part is that he's not even making a strong, logical point when he does so. He either rambles about or makes an appeal to emotion. Save the overstepping for when it's really needed.
Don't hesitate to share your personal pet peeves in the comments section.
Tagged: 2008 election, Rudy Giuliani, presidential election
| Tuesday, August 07, 2007 |
Mitt Romney was on Jan Mickelson's radio show in Iowa - the following exchange took place off air, and showcases 2 things:
1) Romney understands that personal morality can be separated from governmental obligation
2) Jan Mickelson is a tool who can't follow a cogent argument (or is too busy trying to be a blowhard to listen to another person's response).
Watch the video:
What Mitt points out is that Government's job is not to enforce morality - it is to protect the citizenry. I don't drink, but that doesn't mean we should ban alcohol - another person's consumption of alcohol in no way infringes upon my rights (or anyone else's) so the government has no interest in making it illegal.
Personal morality is important in an election only in that it is suggestive of character. It is not indicative of the laws for which a candidate might press to enact.
Tagged: 2008 election, jan mickelson, mitt romney, mormon, mormonism, presidential election, religion
| Sunday, August 05, 2007 |
Naturally, I watched Sunday's Republican debate with great anticipation, and I particularly perked up when the question of tax reform was raised, as this is an issue of primary importance for me.
This question provided an opportunity for the Republican candidates to show leadership by endorsing wholesale tax reform - abandoning a complex, and unfair tax code that is an albatross around the necks of working class Americans. Instead, the front-runners suggested a coat of wax for a rust-covered car. Mitt Romney suggested the minor reform of not taxing savings. Rudy Giuliani proved to be a visionary by stating that it would be "too complex to get there," when asked about the possibility of switching to the Fair Tax. Nice to see that Rudy will pass on a truly great idea that would benefit the American public in favor of an easier solution that won't provide real relief. Didn't he write a book called Leadership? Stellar example of the principle at work.
Who enlivened the crowd with his response? Who undrestands that our current tax code deters small business start-ups and strikes fear into the hearts of the citizenry? Mike Huckabee, of all people. After a brief, cogent explanation of the benefits of the Fair Tax, the Iowa crowd erupted into applause. Governor Huckabee hit a homerun - but you won't read much about that in the mainstream news outlets, because they've already written him off as a fringe candidate.
Still, it was great to see someone step out on a limb for meaningful reform. Mike Huckabee - you're ok in my book.
Tagged: Fair Tax, IRS, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Tax, Taxation
| Saturday, August 04, 2007 |
Nominating a candidate for president has never been a more costly or time consuming endeavor than it is at present, where exploratory committees and unofficial campaigning start as much as 2 years prior to the first primary date. Feelers seem to be put out by some potential candidates for the next general election moments after the current one concludes... so why not? Why not throw my hat into the ring for 2016 already?
I'm Eppie Vojt, and I want to be your president... in 9 years.
Perhaps 9 years of planning will afford me sufficient time to master the skillset needed by a presidential hopeful, which I intend to outline briefly in this innaugural WHOB (whitehouseorbust) posting. So, what do I need to work on in order to secure a nomination?
1) Look Presidential
2) Lego my Ego - Learn to Waffle
3) Be Rich and Befriend Other Wealthy People
4) Avoid Substance at All Costs
Look Presidential
Maybe we can blame it on reality TV. The American public has now spent several years selecting its own American Idol, Survivor, and Top Model, among others. We all cast the parts within the first few episodes (... not that I watch any of those programs...) - it's natural. So, it should be no surprise that when Romney, McCain, Giuliani, et al step on stage for the Republican debate, we immediately form an opinion of who looks like the president. In fairness, it happens when Clinton, Obama, and Edwards take to the podiums as well.
The sad part is, we're not casting a movie - we're selecting the leader of our country, the man or woman who will represent us abroad and take the lead on foreign affairs, the person who can help shape the national agenda for the House and Senate. Sadder still - the commentary on "looking presidential" isn't limited to Joe Citizen. It's promoted by the "news" networks covering these events. Following a debate, the various talking heads invariably discuss who looked presidential, and moments later the polls start popping up on their websites - which candidate was best dressed?
Good thing Guiliani wore Armani. Our relations with the Italians might have suffered otherwise!
Lego my Ego - Learn to Waffle
Now that I know I'll look good, I guess I need to get to the substance of my campaign... or maybe I should wait until I poll the American public and find out where I should stand this year on key topics, like abortion, troop evacuation, border security, and social welfare programs. I mean, really, who can expect me to actually form a solid opinion on these topics until we're 6 months or less away from the primary, right?
At least that's how it seems if you listen to many of today's candidates. Some (like Mitt Romney, with his vascilating views on abortion) have made drastic changes in their public policy to more closely align themselves with their party's faithful. Others (ie, just about everyone) have been certain to temper views on highly controversial topics (Iraq war troop withdrawal). I'm against the war but I support the troops... great, but what do you propose we actually do in the Middle East?
Be Rich and Befriend Other Wealthy People
What do you really need to make a bid for the Presidency? Money - more than anything else. Good ideas? meh. A record of strong results? We could take it or leave it. Experience? Apparently not much more than Mayor. None of those things are very important - what really matters is that you have the dough to be able to buy air time for bad commercials... and if your personal fortune can't sustain you, your wealthy friends surely must. Seriously, it's important that the American public get lots of 30 second glimpses into the minds and hearts of the potential leader of the free world. We need to see that our potential president can throw a ball to his dog, and shake hands with a steel worker. Those things can only be accomplished by a man or woman fit to lead this country. This leads me to my final point:
Avoid Substance at All Costs
...and the substance I'm talking about here isn't illegal drugs, heck our last two presidents have dabbled there - Clinton had the munchies, GW's got a sweet tooth (or would that be sweet nose) for the "nose candy." You can toke away or drink 'til you drop - just don't ever say something meaningful while campaigning. That's the kiss of death.
You see, presidential elections aren't really about the issues anymore. They're almost entirely filled with emotional rhetoric, question dodging, and glad-handing. Where are the plans for our future? Nobody really wants to lay them out there, because they're afraid we might disagree with them. Instead, they just withhold information and try to look presidential.
I've had enough of it. That's why I want to be your next president... err... your next to next president (if the next president serves 2 terms), or your next to next to next president if they get ousted in 4. Vojt for Change... in, like 9 years!
Tagged: 2016, barack obama, eppie vojt, hillary clinton, mitt romney, politics, presidential election, rudy giuliani
| Friday, August 03, 2007 |
Property tax is counterintuitive, counterproductive, and inherently unfair. As taxpayers, our natural inclination is to minimize our tax burden wherever possible. It's the reason we go through the hassle of itemizing our tax returns instead of taking the standard deduction, it's why we invest in the market instead of paying down a mortgage (unless one is stuck with an exorbitant interest rate), it's why millions of Americans contribute to their 401(k) plans and take advantage of HSAs.
It is in our best interest as individuals to minimize our tax burden... except when it comes to property taxes, because minimizing your tax burden means you would have to live in a poorly constructed, insufficiently maintained, rat-infested dump of a home... but at least your property taxes would be low. Seriously, nobody wants that. So we pour money into our homes, making them an enjoyable respite from the troubles of the world. We add hardwood floors and recessed lighting. We build additions and finish basements. We make our homes our castles. Then, as we age or fall on hard times, we get taxed right out of them.
The reason this occurs is simple - property taxes don't take into account one's ability to pay the tax at all. Owning property of a certain value is mistakenly perceived by our government to directly correlate to a certain level of income. It is a de facto means of increasing personal income tax on a society that would revolt if this tax were openly withheld from paychecks. It simply would not be tolerated.
It is in the State's interest to continue taxing the masses in various different formats. They reach into our pockets with income tax, and further assault us by withholding tax before it is actually due. Then, lest we (the citizenry) become aware of the heavy hand of the pickpocketting State, they reach into another compartment to extract property tax. Finally, they further supplement their haul by taxing consumption, with a sales tax. By taxing in multiple fashions, and by mandating withholding of income tax prior to its due date, the State ensures a constat stream of revenue - REGARDLESS of the people's willingness to hand over such a hefty portion of our earnings.
It's time to stop the fleecing of the American public. We should have a say in what our tax burden is, and if that causes our government to fall short on its required revenue, it should send a message to our leaders that they need to be more fiscally responsible. The way to achieve this type of accountability is through the abolition of passive taxation (property tax, income tax) and through the implementation of a consumption tax. As individuals, we will have power to directly impact governmental policy through control of the purse. By adjusting our spending habits, we will be able to issue a vote to our governmental leaders that can not be ignored. Our discretionary spending will be an additional check and balance on the political system.
Further, we will promote sound personal fiscal behavior - saving, which is good for individuals, is promoted as it reduces one's tax liability. Making improvements to one's home will not result in the penalty of an increased tax burden that extends in perpetuity. Years of hard work, spent accumulating the wealth necessary to purchase a fine home will not be forgotten, as elderly Americans will not have rising property taxes force them out of their homes.
It is time for a wholesale change in how America funds its government. It is time for a fair and equitable tax code. It is time to abandon apathy and to embrace progress. We can build a better America.
Tagged: consumption tax, eppie vojt, fair tax, income tax, property tax, tax, taxation
