Today's RTD: Should presidential electors exercise independent judgment?

In the commentary section of today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, I argue that presidential electors can, and should, exercise independent judgment when they cast their states electoral votes in December.

In "Electors should vote their consciences," I begin by telling the story of Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector in 1972 who was pledged to vote for incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon. MacBride chose, instead, to cast his ballots for the Libertarian ticket of John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.

The Libertarian Party had been founded barely a year earlier, and its presidential ticket appeared on the ballots of only four states. (Nixon, you may recall, thumped George McGovern that year, winning every state but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He went on to resign in disgrace two years later.) The notoriety MacBride achieved by this brazen act catapulted him, four years later, to become the LP's second presidential nominee.

While "faithless electors" may break the law in some states, what few court decisions that have addressed the matter indicate that presidential electors may vote their consciences:

State laws (like Virginia’s) that bind electors to particular candidates have rarely, if ever, been tested. An Oklahoma elector in 1960 who voted for Virginia Sen. Harry F. Byrd rather than Richard Nixon did so even though he was threatened with a $1,000 fine. “I am not worried about $1,000,” he said, and the only penalty imposed on him was a refusal to pay his travel expenses to Oklahoma City.

Few court decisions have addressed the independence of presidential electors. An 1896 Kansas court decision said that electors were under “no legal obligation” to support any particular candidate and were “authorized to use their own judgment as to the proper eligible persons to fill these high offices.” In 1948, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that all electors were free to vote as they pleased, because it was “only by force of a moral obligation, not a legal one, that the presidential electors pledged to certain candidacies fulfill their pledges after election.”

Each elector can make up his or her mind about whether to follow the election returns or to vote independently, but this year's decision making process carries unusual moral and ethical weight. Both of the two largest parties have nominated flawed presidential candidates. While Democratic electors are, for the most part, satisfied with Hillary Clinton (if not enthusiastic about her) as their party's candidate, Republican electors are, like Republicans at large, conflicted about Donald J. Trump.

So, I argue:

The electors’ right to independent judgment may be most pertinent this year, when GOP presidential electors are expected to vote for a nominee who has brought shame to their party. The vulgar and impolitic Trump has expressed contempt for the Constitution, undermined confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, dismissed any interest in the legislative process, and been at loggerheads with time-tested conservative, Republican values.

A Republican “faithless elector” in 2016 will bravely and astutely avoid the future taint of association with Trump, the most unfit character ever to seek the presidency, simply by casting his ballot for Gary Johnson (my choice, and the choice of this newspaper) or another suitable person.

If either Democratic or Republican electors, in Virginia or elsewhere, choose to vote their consciences on December 19, I'll give them full credit for having moral courage. It would be nice to think my op/ed piece influenced their choices -- and perhaps some of them will have seen it, since (if the metrics app is believable) more than 3,700 readers have recommended the article to their friends on Facebook.

Gary Johnson on Donald Trump's contempt for democratic transitions: 'Unbelievable'

Last night, in the third and final Democratic-Republican presidential debate, GOP candidate Donald J. Trump suggested that he may not accept the results of the election on November 8, continuing his theme of asserting that massive electoral fraud will take place and that is the only reason he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

Today, Trump doubled down on his refusal to accept the central tenet of American democracy, that when a person or party loses an election, they become the loyal opposition and wait for another opportunity to win public office.

According to the Associated Press:

Trump kicked off a rally Thursday in Delaware, Ohio, by saying that he "would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supports and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election."

But he added: "If I win."

In response to Trump's bizarre break with tradition, the Libertarian Party's nominee for President, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, issued this statement:

Gary Johnson

“As a former Governor, who was elected and served as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, I have to say that Donald Trump’s refusal to say he will accept the outcome of an election is just one more straw too many. It’s offensive to the thousands of election officials across the nation, and it’s offensive to a nation for which the integrity of elections is what sets us apart from much of the world.

“Peaceful transition of power, which depends entirely upon honoring the results of elections, is as fundamental to our greatness and Constitution as anything else we do in America, and Donald Trump can’t even accept that fundamental without hedging.

“Unbelievable.”

Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, have achieved ballot access in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia -- the first third-party presidential ticket to do so since Libertarian Harry Browne and his running mate, Jo Jorgensen, did it in 1996.

Guest Post: Vote Against Both Evils, by Will Hammer

This November 8th, if you decide to vote, you have a huge choice to make. You can either vote for a corrupt crony politician, or you can vote for a vulgar corrupt crony reality TV star. Because of the media, the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, and the two major parties who have a vested interest in only having two parties, you would think those are your only choices.

Will Hammer, left, with Robert Sarvis in Buena Vista, Virginia

Well, you actually do have a choice at the ballot box this November. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. He is an honest and a great man, not your typical crony politician or a bigoted, morally corrupt, gaudy salesman. Do I agree with Johnson on everything? No, but he is leaps and bounds better than Clinton or Trump and represents real change from the business as usual in Washington that has gotten us here. Is Gary Johnson perfect? No, but he actually admits that and it’s refreshing when a politician admits their humanity. Will you agree with him on everything? Probably not, but at least you know he does not have an agenda and he’s not speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or other orifice.

The biggest smear the media can come up with for Johnson is his ‘Aleppo moment’, in which he didn’t know what Aleppo was when randomly asked during a live interview. Should he have been able to answer that question? Of course, he’s running for President, but it’s definitely not a disqualifier. I’d rather have someone whose foreign policy won’t cause Syrian and other middle eastern strife, than someone who would know, but only because she was part of the administration that caused the major humanitarian crisis. He had another moment where he couldn’t name a foreign leader he respected. A week later, he still can’t. The media would have you believe that he couldn’t name ANY foreign leader, but that’s untrue. He cannot name a current foreign leader he admires and he explained that he doesn’t want to defend them against things that he’s not even aware of. Again, this was an unscripted, live question. The other candidates NEVER have unscripted questions. They are screened, planted, and given well beforehand to prepare.

So those are Gary Johnson’s big ‘scandals.’ Now, let’s compare those to Trump and Clinton. If I were to include all of them, this article would take up the whole newspaper, not 1600 words. Trump and Clinton are different sides of the same corrupt, crony coin. One sells her political power and influence and the other buys it. Trump is definitely no outsider, and Clinton is no progressive politician putting people before profits.

Trump has a horrible temperament and would be a disaster diplomatically, saying whatever came to his head on a whim in public, completely alienating us and quite frankly being a national embarrassment. He has spoken about media organizations such as the Washington Post having issues if he becomes President because of stories they have written about him. He has spoken about companies such as Amazon (both owned by Jeff Bezos) getting taxed essentially out of business. His careless speech may even incite violence, with him making suggestions about gun owners taking care of Clinton and many other situations. Trump has exploited horrible eminent domain laws to obtain private land to build his developments. He scammed people with Trump University, used bankruptcy to screw people and contractors over while walking away with millions, and the list goes on. He’s a bigot, demonizing Mexicans and others. And he’s a misogynist, saying crude and horrible things to and about various women. That’s bad enough, but we have just found out that he sexually assaults women and brags about it in private. This latest revelation was caught via a hot mic. Some are defending him, saying that it’s ‘locker room’ talk. Of course men do that, just as women do the same. But, there is a HUGE difference between what Trump said and ‘locker room’ talk. Trump actually talked about how being famous and a star allows him to sexually assault women and get away with it. I could care less about the “lewd language”, I care about the actions he described and he gets away with. This is DISGUSTING. This is it, this is your moment of truth. Are you going to defend and vote for this loathsome egomaniac?

Gary Johnson and William Weld at Libertarian Party Convention, May 2016

Clinton is definitely no saint either. Clinton is about as hawkish as they come. She voted for the Iraq War, costing thousands of US lives, an estimated 250-500k Iraqi lives, instability, and nearly $2 TRILLION. She was Secretary of State while the Obama administration bombed at least 8 countries, thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. She was part of regime change that created more and more instability, which led to the rise of ISIS. Simply put, she is one of the biggest advocates for and participants in our horrible foreign policy that has cost us US lives, innocent foreign lives, trillions of dollars, created more terrorists and allowed for ISIS to fill the void, and so on. War is a racket and Clinton is no peace candidate. The Clinton Foundation and pay to play with foreign governments/leaders. Recently she has also had some scandals involving emails. A leak revealed the DNC conspired to make sure Bernie Sanders did not receive nomination and that Clinton would. As a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2012, I feel your pain and disgust Sander supporters.There is also the private email server that was in a bathroom that Clinton used instead of secure servers provided by the government for classified and official business while Secretary of the State. The FBI decided not to pursue charges against Clinton, but made it clear that she was extremely careless and frankly inept at handling classified information. But, why the double standard? Others have been charged with mishandling classified information, not intentionally. 30,000 emails deleted with BleachBit, 30 new emails recovered by FBI recently related to Benghazi, Clinton IT specialist asking Reddit how to alter ‘very VIP’ emails, and the list goes on. And now, the same day that Trump’s sexual groping audio comes to light, Wikileaks has released emails from Clinton’s campaign manager, revealing excerpts from Clinton’s Goldman Sach and other speeches, where she has earned more than $22 million, such as “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

I recommend voting against both evils and voting for Gary Johnson. He is a two term Republican governor from a heavily Democratic state, as is his running mate Bill Weld. They will bring sanity and non-partisanship to the office, reaching across the aisle and working with coalitions of all parties. They are fiscally responsible and socially accepting, like the majority of Americans. They do not want to continue our failed foreign policy of drone strikes, invasions, backing various rebel groups, and overthrowing governments. They want to balance our budget and stop the growing $20 trillion deficit, which has doubled under Bush and then again under Obama. Reject both of the two major party Presidential candidates, the most hated in US history. The Democrats and Republicans believe they own your vote. They do not, you own your own vote. A vote for anyone is not a vote for someone else, like the narrative they are trying to play right now. Gary Johnson is polling roughly 10% nationally. But these are polls that do not include people under 40 (which actually favor Johnson) and/or have only Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the top line, head to head. In reality, they are not going head to head. This is at least a 3 way race in all 50 states, and a 4 way race in most states with Jill Stein. Johnson is polling over 19% in five states, over 15% in 15 states, and over 10% in 42 states. He currently is actually polling within margin or error to Trump in New Mexico. If Gary Johnson does get 10% in Virginia, then the Libertarian Party would get major party status and be able to run candidates within obtaining the ridiculous amount of signatures required currently. There are many other states where Johnson’s success would create more choice on the ballot as well. If he was allowed on the debate stage, run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was founded by former Democrat and Republican national chairs, then I have no doubt that he would be even higher, and possibly overtake both candidates. But thanks to Ross Perot’s success, who was polling lower than Johnson and was allowed to debate, the CPD raised the arbitrary percentage to be in the debates. It’s a scam and even the League of Women Voters, who used to run the Presidential debates, dropped their sponsorship because they did not want to help “perpetuate a fraud on the American people.” Even dozens of major newspapers and publications are calling for Gary Johnson’s inclusion into the debate, with over 60% of polled Americans wishing for Johnson to be included. Gary Johnson has even received six major newspaper endorsements, to Trump’s zero.

Will Hammer is a Libertarian who ran in 2014 for U.S. Congress and 2015 for Virginia House of Delegates. Hammer was the sole recipient of the Libertarian Party’s Patrick Henry award in 2016, which recognizes a very effective campaign for public office at the state or federal level, while communicating Libertarian ideas, principles, and values.

Guest Post by James Copeland: 'How I Would Coach Donald Trump for the Next Debate'

Publisher's Note: This guest post was written by James Copeland, executive director, emeritus, of the National Speech and Debate Association. He was a member of the Associated Press Presidential Debate Evaluation Panel, 1976-2000. He is the author of Cross Examination in Debate (1983) and has advised gubernatorial and congressional candidates about campaign debates.

Donald Trump, like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan, is a leader, not a man of study.  Men of study like Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were good with briefing books and detail.  But briefing books and practice debates are not the best way for Mr. Trump to prepare.

Preparation for the next debate must be based upon Trump's considerable skills. His greatest skill was exhibited on “The Apprentice”, where Trump evaluated and judged the arguments of others. Trump is a counter puncher and this skill can be honed to create retorts to opposition arguments.

The retort is the most effective and dramatic argument that can be posed in a debate: It takes the PREMISE of the opponent's attack and turns it back against the accuser.

Example #1: [Premise: Transparency]
Secretary Clinton insists I release my tax returns.

I insist she release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms, which paid her thousands of dollars in speaking fees. How do we know what she promised them? She demands I provide transparency, yet she provides none.

Example #2: [Premise: Honesty]
Secretary Clinton accuses me of not being truthful when I say I did not support the Iraq war.

My opinion was that of a private citizen. I accuse Secretary Clinton of not being truthful about the Benghazi attack. Publicly she blamed the attack on an anti-Muslim video. Privately she tweeted her daughter, Chelsea, that it was a terrorist attack! She demands honesty from private citizens, yet refuses to provide it as a public official.

(NOTE: A retort is NOT a pivot. A pivot tries to dodge an argument, not turn it back on the accuser.)

If I had the honor to coach Mr. Trump I would follow this plan:

1] Mr. Trump should be seated in an executive chair behind a table, like “The Apprentice”
2] Facing Mr. Trump about ten feet away should be two side by side podiums.
3] At one podium is the Clinton surrogate; at the other a Trump surrogate.
4] Staff will have prepared a list of Clinton personal attacks on Trump and a retort for each.
5] Staff will have prepared a list of Trump issues, Clinton's rebuttal and Trump's retort.
6] Each surrogate will be scripted with the material prepared by staff.
7] The surrogates will act out one attack or issue at a time. THEN
8] MR. TRUMP WILL REFINE EACH RETORT ON CONTENT AND WORDING .
9] MR. TRUMP MAY DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WOULD SPEAK THE RETORT.
10] Roger Ailes should attend each session and privately offer his critique to Mr. Trump.
11] Each session will not last more than one hour (15 minutes for each issue).

For James Copeland's assessment of the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, see this post on Bearing Drift:  "Champion Debate Coach Assesses Trump-Clinton Performances."

From the Archives: Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine ponders appeal to third-party voters

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 4, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  With the impending nomination of Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) as the vice presidential running mate of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine ponders appeal to third-party voters

Although former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Tuesday, where he pointed out that “a few years ago, few imagined that Virginia would be a battleground state,” on Monday he was at Buena Vista's Labor Day celebration, campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Democrat Jim Webb.

Because Virginia has gone “from red to purple,” as Kaine put it in his convention speech, polls show the state’s presidential contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is neck-and-neck, and the Senate contest between Kaine and former Senator George Allen is tracking very close to that, a dead heat.

On September 4, the State Board of Elections confirmed that there will be three third-party presidential candidates on the ballot in Virginia, in addition to Obama and Romney: Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

‘Same questions’

Given that some voters will cast their ballots for neither Obama nor Romney on November 6 but rather for one of those three independent candidates, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Governor Kaine in Buena Vista how he would appeal to those third-party voters to garner their support for his Senate bid.

Tim Kaine

“I bet they have the same questions that other Virginians do,” Kaine replied. Those voters want to know “how to fix the economy, how to balance the budget, how to find common ground.”

Kaine said that he has “a better plan than my opponent in all three of those areas, so I’m making my case to them based on the record but also based on what we need to do on the national level.”

A lot of third party voters, he added, “are interested in the spending issues. I’m the only governor of Virginia who left office with a smaller general fund budget than when I started.”

Kaine explained that that situation may have been due to the fact that he was governor during the onset of a severe recession, but even so, he added, “I had to make a lot of painful cuts.”

Making those kinds of cuts, he pointed out, is something that “very few people in the Senate have had to do.”

George Allen, he said, “didn’t have to do it when he was in the Senate -- but I know how to do it.”

Suggested Links

Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities
Senator Jim Webb talks about U.S.-Korea free trade and stability in Asia
In Crozet for Independence Day weekend, George Allen warns of ‘perpetual debt'
Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day
Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson on health care, marriage, and Colbert

Because of the demise of the Examiner.com publishing platform, the original URL for this article is no longer available.

From the Archives: Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 3, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  With the impending nomination of Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) as the vice presidential running mate of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities

Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who is also the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jim Webb.

On July 2, Kaine came to Crozet, in western Albemarle County, to celebrate Independence Day two days early: marching in a parade and speaking at a festival at Claudius Crozet Park sponsored by the local volunteer fire department. Kaine’s likely Republican opponent in the 2012 election, former Governor and Senator George Allen, was also present, and the two men described each other as “competitors and friends.”

Just before the formal program began, Kaine spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about current issues, including the impending congressional vote on raising the national debt ceiling, and what he hopes to bring from Virginia to the national stage.

Debt ceiling limit

“My assessment of the situation” with regard to the debt ceiling vote, Kaine said, “is I can’t believe they let it get as close as they have. You shouldn’t be playing brinksmanship with things like threatened government shutdowns or threatened default on debt payments.”

Even so, he added, “we’ve got to find a resolution. I think the resolution is one where we increase the debt ceiling limitation but in exchange we have to do a combination of significant cuts [and] finding more revenues.”

To get more revenues, he explained, will require “closing loopholes on certain businesses and individuals that don’t need them.”

That should be followed by making “more investments in transportation and education to grow the economy. That’s the best anti-deficit strategy of all.”

Getting libertarian votes

Asked how he would appeal to libertarian-minded voters in the coming election campaign, Kaine said that he would talk about his record.

“I am very much a supporter of individual liberties,” he explained, adding that “yet we’re in this mixture, where we have individual liberties -- and that’s the great thing about our country -- but we also have communal responsibilities. Just trying to find that right balance is important.”

Kaine noted that “we do pretty well on that in Virginia. My basic campaign message is, ‘America has challenges, Virginia has answers,’ so I’ll be talking about the way we do it here in Virginia.”

From Virginia to D.C.

The former governor gave three specific ways that he plans to take lessons learned in Virginia to the national level.

George Allen and Tim Kaine, July 2, 2011

First, with regard to the “challenged economy,” he said, the way Virginia “went from low income to high income [was] by going from low education to high education. Education innovation is the best economic development and jobs strategy.”

The second lesson is “fiscal responsibility,” he said, explaining that “I had to make more cuts than anybody who’s ever been governor -- but there’s a right way and wrong way to do it. No across-the-boards, don’t shred the safety net, and don’t do the kind of gimmicks like default on the debt payment stuff. Just make hard decisions.”

The third thing he offered is that, in Virginia, “we have some balance and civility. We still listen to each other instead of just trying to out talk each other, and that’s what I want to take” to Washington.

Kaine may still face a primary challenge for the Democratic Senate nomination from Third District Representative Bobby Scott, who announced on July 1 that he is delaying his decision on whether to get into the race. Former Governor Allen also has several challengers for the GOP nomination, including Tim Donner, David McCormick, and Jamie Radtke.

Do you like this article? Do you want to see more like it? Be sure to click on the "subscribe" button at the top of the page.

If you would like to become an Examiner on Examiner.com, click here or on the "write for us" button on the upper right corner of this page.

Suggested Links

At his 17th Shad Planking, George Allen lays claim to a ‘libertarian streak’
Va. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke hopes her message resonates with libertarians
Virginia GOP Senate candidate David McCormick touts his business experience
Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott weighs in on budget’s ‘tough choices’
Senator Jim Webb talks about U.S.-Korea free trade and stability in Asia

With the demise of the Examiner.com publishing platform, the original URL for this article is no longer available.

From the Archives: Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 13, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

White House hopeful Bernie Sanders spoke to an enthusiastic audience in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Monday, May 11, laying out his policy vision and contrasting it directly with that of the Republican Congress and indirectly to that of his opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders delivered his remarks to an overflow crowd at Trinity Episcopal Church, whose sanctuary has chairs for just 100 people. Another 175 or so squeezed into a basement room and the narthex.

The event, which was billed as a town hall meeting on the federal budget, had been announced in April, before Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats on Capitol Hill, had declared his intention to seek the Democratic party's nomination for president.

In what is likely to become his standard stump speech, self-defined Socialist Sanders addressed a range of issues that were only related to the budget in the sense that they are items the government spends money on, such as free college tuition for students in public institutions and a multi-trillion dollar program to improve transportation infrastructure. He decried the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and proposed public financing for federal election campaigns.

Health care and free trade
Sanders proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and creating a single-payer health care insurance program to replace the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare), or what he called “universal Medicare.”

Sanders also took aim at the Obama administration's support for free trade agreements in the Pacific Rim, pointing out that the minimum wage in Vietnam is about 50 cents an hour.

“All of us, I know, want to see poor people around the world do better. We all do, but there are ways that we can do that without engaging in a race to the bottom in this country,” he said. “Our job is to uplift the poor people around the world, not sink the working people of this country.”

Sanders said he voted against NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), and permanent normal trade relations with China, “because these were all trade agreements that were pushed by corporate America, the big monied interest, and I intend to play an active role in defeating the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Asked later by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner whether he supports renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which expires in September 2015, Sanders offered no position, saying: “You know what? To be very honest, I've been focusing more on the TPP than that.”

'Perpetual warfare'
In a question and answer session following his prepared remarks, Sanders contrasted himself most explicitly with Clinton (without ever mentioning her name) in his discussion of foreign policy.

On foreign policy, he noted that when he was first elected to Congress back in 1991, one of his first votes was against the first Gulf War. His wife predicted that vote would earn him a short congressional career, a remark met with laughter from the audience.

With regard to the war in Iraq that started in 2003, “I had serious doubts about what [President George W.] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were saying and I had serious concerns about the kind of destabilization that would take place and, sadly, much of what I feared has in fact taken place. I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the opposition to it and, unfortunately, we were not successful.” (Hillary Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted in favor of the Iraq War.)

“Where we are right now is in a very difficult world and I wish I could tell you otherwise but as all of you know, there are terrorists out there who want to do us harm,” he said, adding “we've got to be vigilant in protecting this country against them.”

Sanders continued: “What I would also tell you is that, while some of my colleagues apparently have no idea of what the war in Afghanistan has meant, what the war in Iraq has meant. Some of these guys seem to be itching for another war. I fear very much that, if we don't stand up, we could be in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.”

Referring to the so-called Islamic State (sometimes called ISIS or ISIL), the Vermont senator said that group should be opposed. “Here, I think, is the main point: the United States and Western countries should be very, very supportive but at the end of the day, the only way, in my view, that the war against ISIS is won, is when the Muslim countries stand up themselves and lead that fight.”

Senator Sanders' budget town hall in Charlottesville was the third and last in a series. The other two took place in Maryland and Washington, D.C.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection
Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson assesses Romney, Stein, and Goode
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
Poultry industry is trade-talk pawn of South African government, says analyst

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-stumps-for-support-charlottesville

I endorse Governor Gary Johnson for President in 2016

I have been publishing this and other blogs for more than eleven years, in addition to contributing to Examiner.com, Bearing Drift, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed page over that period.  I've spent countless hours discussing politics as a guest commentator (and guest host) on local radio and TV programs.

Throughout that time, I have refrained from endorsing candidates for public office at any level.  To be fair, I have written nice things about candidates I like and snarky things about candidates I dislike, but I have never issued an explicit endorsement.

This year, that changes.  This year, the stakes are too high.

In 2016, with Hillary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the alt-right, I am morally bound to oppose them both.  Yet I am not content to vote for the least of three (or four) evils.  Instead, I can enthusiastically endorse the most qualified of any of the candidates for president who will appear on the ballots of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

The letter below was released earlier today on Facebook.  I felt compelled to write it because of the risk that my fellow Libertarians may grasp defeat and despair from the jaws of opportunity and success.

Governor Gary Johnson represents the best hope for a Libertarian ascendancy in the 45-year history of the party.  Gary Johnson will have my vote in Orlando on May 29, and my vote in Virginia on November 8.

I urge my compatriots in the LPVA to do the same at the convention next weekend, and my fellow citizens to do the same in the general election.

May 20, 2016

To my fellow delegates to the 2016 Libertarian National Convention
and to all American voters:

I am firm in my support of Governor Gary Johnson and endorse him for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination without reservation.

To be honest, I have known Governor Johnson for six years and he is the warmest, most unassuming politician I've ever met - - and I've met many, including every Virginia governor since Chuck Robb and nearly every candidate for Virginia statewide office since at least 2001. He is also among the most intelligent and thoughtful people I know.


You can't ignore the unprecedented flood of positive media attention that Gary has induced. Polls show him winning vote percentages in the double digits, on the cusp of an invitation to the debates this fall, with the minimum potential of doubling or tripling the LP's record-high totals of 2012. If any other candidate wins the nomination on May 29, all of that will be dust in the wind, and the party's presidential vote totals will descend to Michael Badnarik - - or worse, Dave Bergland - - levels. The added advantages of drawing new and energetic members into the party, bringing libertarian ideas to a wider audience, and changing the terms of the country’s policy discussions are incalculable.

Disaffected Republicans who vow #NeverTrump will not cast their votes for another erratic businessman with no political foundation, nor for a never-elected neophyte with a thin résumé. They are looking for someone with solid credentials and a proven track record. Similarly, disaffected Democrats who prefer Bernie Sanders’ misdirected idealism to a Clinton dynasty will find Gary’s clear vision of fiscal prudence and social progress compelling.

Gary Johnson is a credible, pragmatic, experienced chief executive with a libertarian core. I can't imagine a better combination as the LP's standard bearer or as President of the United States.

-- Rick Sincere
   Chairman, Libertarian Party of Virginia, 1991-1996
   Cofounder and President, Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty
   Former Chairman, City of Charlottesville Electoral Board

I hope to see many of my readers in Orlando and I look forward to a vigorous, civil debate about the nominations and the issues.

Gerald Ford's Views on a Hillary Clinton Presidential Run

Hillary Clinton at the 1996 Democratic National Convention

Today is former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 66th birthday. In 2016, she will be 69 years old, the same age that Ronald Reagan was when he became the nation's oldest elected president. Still, Clinton -- also a former senator from New York and First Lady during the two terms of Bill Clinton -- is widely seen as a likely presidential candidate to succeed Barack Obama.

Clinton is not the only potential Democratic candidate for 2016. Vice President Joe Biden has made known his desire to run for his current boss's job. Others whose names have been suggested are New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

I was intrigued, while recently reading a book about former President Gerald Ford, to find out that Ford had some strong opinions about Hillary Clinton as a potential president and presidential candidate.

In Thomas M. DeFrank's 2007 book, Write It When I'm Gone, Ford was unusually candid. The premise of the book is that, over a series of interviews conducted in Ford's post-presidency (mostly in the 1990s but also as recently as a year before his death), DeFrank wrote down Ford's thoughts about politics, policy, and personalities with the understanding that nothing from the interviews would be published until after he died.

Ford did not meet either of the Clintons until after Bill's inauguration in 1992, but he admired Hillary (somewhat begrudgingly) and predicted she could be the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004 or 2008. (Ford did not have the prescience to see the formidable challenge HRC would face in Barack Obama. At Ford's death in December 2006, Obama was barely on the national radar screen, much less Ford's own.)

Over three pages of Write It When I'm Gone (pp. 149-152), DeFrank recounts several conversations with the former president about his assessment of the then-First Lady:

... he and Hillary were polar opposites ideologically, and he wasn't sure she would be a particularly appealing candidate if she ever ran for the White House.

But those first encounters [at the Fords' Colorado vacation home] convinced him she had the emotional toughness for the job:

"I learned this: she's stronger and tougher than he is," he told me in 1994. "When she takes a point, you're gonna have to be damn sure you're well informed, because she won't compromise as quickly or as easily as he. She's very bright, she's strong, and I think he defers to her. When she gets her dander up, she ain't gonna roll over."

When Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, Ford thought it was a cynical move to give her a stepping-stone to the presidency, but he also thought it would backfire on her. "Truth is," he told DeFrank, "that's a handicap to her."

Nonetheless, Ford still foresaw a White House run in Hillary's future:

"The Republicans will make a mistake if they think she is gonna be a pushover. She is a tough, knowledgeable,articulate lady. On the other hand, her toughness in the political arena may not be a big asset. She obviously wants to stay in the political spotlight."

By 2002, he was certain Hillary had already decided to make a presidential bid:

"I'll make this prediction, as long as this is off the record. I'll gar-antee [sic] you, either in 2004 or 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a candidate for president. [And] I wouldn't rule out Hillary in 2004, I really wouldn't."

Obviously, Ford was wrong about 2004 but he was right about 2008 -- 2016 was beyond the scope of his predictions in 2002, of course.

DeFrank reported further:

Asked if Hillary would be formidable, he replied that her nomination by the Democrats was a foregone conclusion: "Hillary is gonna be on the ticket in '04 or '08, one or the other, and you can write that down."

Why was he so sure Hillary was running?

"Because she has unlimited ambition. When you look at her record, she's a bona fide liberal with unlimited ambition.

"You look at her track record. She went to Arkansas and married Clinton because she saw in him a way to get national recognition 'cause she thought from the beginning he would be a candidate for president and she would get to be president. There's nothing in her track record, Tom, which shows any [inclination] to stay in the background."

I have to wonder whether Ford heard that joke making the rounds in the 1990s, which went something like this:

Bill and Hillary were driving in the countryside when they stopped for gas. The gas station attendant smiled and said, "Hello, Hillary, it's been a long time."

Curious, Bill asked her who he was.

"Oh, that's an old boyfriend of mine. We were once engaged to be married."

Bill chuckled and said, "Isn't that interesting! If you had married him, you'd be the wife of a gas-station attendant."

"No, Bill," Hillary said. "If I had married him, he would be President of the United States."

In any case, DeFrank also noted Ford's doubts about Hillary's electability as a presidential candidate.

... he thought she'd have trouble getting elected because of all the personal and political baggage she'd be toting.

"It depends on the public sentiment in the years out [at the time]. Of course, she's very vulnerable -- she was the mastermind of that terrible health care program which she tried to sell. So that would always be a liability for her."

(After 20 years, would Hillarycare be more popular than Obamacare?)

Later in the book (p. 252), DeFrank recounts a 2006 interview in which he and Ford discussed the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign.

His Republican favorite was still Rudy Giuliani. "I think Giuliani is an electrifying guy. He's a great speaker. He's had a good record of winning in New York City, and he can be tough."

Ever the political junkie, the House minority leader who used to travel 250 days a year boosting Republicans said he was relishing a head-to-head confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Rudy. For years he'd been telling me Hillary was consumed by ambition, was intent on running in 2004 or 2008, and that despite her political baggage -- and her husbands -- would make "a darned good candidate."

"That would be a great contest between Hillary and Giuliani." He wasn't sure who would win -- it would depend on what else was happening in the country -- but he thought Giuliani had the edge.

"What else was happening in the country" turned out to be the operative phrase in that speculative paragraph.

It happens that I was present at the 2006 presentation of the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prizes at the National Press Club, where Thomas DeFrank was one of the recipients. That turned out to be the first time that Ford himself was not able to attend the event, because of his poor health. Dick Cheney, then vice president and much earlier White House chief of staff in the Ford administration, was the principal speaker at that ceremony.