The Cuban Embargo

Cuba is an island nation in the Caribbean that is 90-miles from the US border (from Key West, Florida).  With it being so close to the country, it’s history and that of the US has been intertwined many times throughout history.  Christopher Columbus first set foot on the island in 1492.  It would be a colony of Spain until after the Spanish-American War when Spain would give up its authority over the island.  US President Theordore Roosevelt would grant Cuba its independence in 1902; however, the US retained the right to intervene in Cuban affairs and supervise its foreign relations and finances. This would continue until the 1959 revolution lead by Fidel Castro.  And it’s at this time that things go awry and quickly.

The US was out and didn’t like the way Castro was going about things.  The government nationalized about $25-billion in private property (of which $1-billion was American property). The CIA actually tried to assassinate Castro both in 1960 and 1961 (according to declassified documents in 2007).  In 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion that was to be done by Cuban exiles living in the US to overthrow Castro… which ended in a complete disaster.  Castro was also getting help from the Soviet Union to help bolster his power.  Things went to the extreme in 1962 when the US learned that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear weapons in Cuba.  The world braced for a nuclear war as the two super-powers (the US and Soviet Union) stared each other down.  Eventually, after some tough talks, the Soviets backed down and took the missiles out of Cuba.  In 1963, the US imposed a complete commercial and diplomatic embargo on the country.  To this very day, the embargo still continues with Cuba.  Since 1963, the overall laws have been strengthened (Helms-Burton Act); however, there has been some lifting with Cuban-Americans being able to travel to Cuba and students being able to do so, as well, so long as they meet certain requirements.  And despite the embargo, Cuba still receives imports (6.6%) from the US.  The US is the 5th largest importer into Cuba, but they have to pay in cash… no credit is allowed.

We are now living in the 21st-century.  The Soviet Union has collapsed long ago.  Communism exists in only a handful of nations… some of which we have trade relations with.  And yet, a nation so close to our own still has an embargo upon it that was put in place in the 1960s.  It sounds a little out-dated to me.  We are in a time where we are looking for new trading partners to help bolster American jobs and our exports.  Wouldn’t it make sense to ship things to Cuba?  We technically already do, so why not make it official?  Yes, it is run by an authoritarian regime that doesn’t necessarily help its people (though some things have been loosened a bit since Raul Castro took over for his older brother Fidel Castro a few years ago), but yet we supported the authoritarian-Mubarak regime in Egypt that was basically the same thing.  The difference… Mubarak was our ally and Castro was an ally of the Soviet Union.  But the Cold War is long over and communism isn’t the threat that it once was.  We even have open trade relations with China… the biggest (and most populace) communist country in the world.  But yet, this little tiny island we just can’t seem to let the past go.

We were never involved in an active (or hot) conflict with Cuba.  Everything was mostly covert operations instead of open hostility.  It probably helped save the US and Soviet Union from going to nuclear war that way.  At the time we were handling this, we were diving head first into a bigger situation in Vietnam… where we supported an authoritarian regime in South Vietnam to protect it from the communist North Vietnam.  In the end, the US would lose and South Vietnam would fall to communist forces in the 1970s.  The country of Vietnam is still a communist nation to this very day.  Despite being involved in an active conflict in that country for a couple of decades, where US lives were lost and money was spent, we now have open trade relations and diplomatic relations with that nation.  But again… Cuba is left to itself despite being so close.

2008 Immigration Statistics

There is also an immigration point to this, too.  Did you know that any Cuban citizen that touches US soil is granted amnesty and allowed to stay legally within the US no matter how they got here? (previous blog entry on immigration)  Quite frankly, they should have to go through the same process as any other immigrant to this country.  Just because they live in a communist nation run by a dictator is no longer grounds for immediate amnesty within our borders.  If we are going to raise an outcry over illegal immigration in this country, shouldn’t Cubans be included in that?  In 1994, the US and Cuban governments agreed that the US would grant 20,000 visas annually in exchange that the Cuban government would crack down on unlawful departures of boats.  And though the Cuban government may or may not be complying with this, people still arrive from Cuba every year by any means necessary and are allowed to stay.  According to the Congressional Research Service, 3,351 Cubans were apprehended by the US Border Patrol in 2008… down slightly from 4,295 in 2007.  Cubans reaching ports of entry without documents showed similar trends… 11,278 in 2008 which was down from 13,019 in 2007.

The overall point that I’m trying to make is this… our relationship with Cuba is substandard to our needs here in the 21st century.  We need to find new markets for US goods… especially as we are coming out of this economic recession.  Why shouldn’t a nation so close be one of those markets?  Why can’t we finally ease the diplomatic and economic sanctions?  Again, the Cold War is long gone.  The government says that the embargo will stay in place until the Castro’s are no longer in power.  Must we really wait until then?  What sense does it make?  We trade and have diplomatic relations with other authoritarian regimes, so why not one that’s right off our coastline.  It could prove to be greatly beneficial to the US economy and for US jobs.  I’m sure the Cuban people have plenty to catch up with.  And if we are wanting to bring about a social revolution within the country, wouldn’t that be the best way to bring it about?  In the end, it could also help with the Cuban immigration problem… especially if we start making them come here legally like we want everyone else to do instead of just allowing them to stay once they are here.  Our history with Cuba is in the past.  So why must we continue to hold onto it so dearly when we have progressed with other nations that too were once our enemy?  It just doesn’t make sense anymore, and it’s time our federal government woke up to it.  It’s no longer the 1960s, it’s time to let it go.

Persian Rug

Its the biggest piece of foreign policy this election year, and it’s been in the news a lot lately.  I’m talking about Iran.  And the question comes up… how do we solve a problem like Iran?  Despite rescuing sailors, threats to close the Straight of Hormuz, development of nuclear technology, and even the execution of an American citizens that has been convicted of spying… there is no shortage of headlines.  The United States, in a nutshell, seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place with no easy answers.

The main problem is the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.  They say that they are working nuclear energy… which if they are, I have no quarrels with.  However, I don’t think many of us are buying what they are trying to tell us.  They have stated, repeatedly, that they would hit Israel, Europe, and the US if they did develop a nuclear weapon.  Seems like pretty big talk from a country that knows it would be blown into non-existence by the western industrialized world if it did (with condemnation from the Arab world, as well).  Iran has already had sanctions placed on it by the United Nations… though, at best, it’s only slowing down the progress of their uranium enrichment and is not (and will not) stop it.  With all the latest problems, the US is calling upon the United Nations to place even more sanctions on the country, to which Iran has replied by threatening to close the Straight of Hormuz… which connects to the Persian Gulf.  Why is the Straight of Hormuz important?  It’s where a lot of our oil comes through… and oil for the world, as well.  But there is a catch to Iran’s “evil” threat.  Most of the oil from Iran goes through there, too.  If they close it off, how does there oil get out?  I’m pretty sure we’d have our own blockade outside of theirs so that their ships don’t get out either.  It would basically be a showdown reminiscent of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The only difference, only one of us is currently a nuclear power… though we have the knowledge that using a nuclear weapon brings about more harm than good.

So how did this nuclear problem develop with Iran?  Why does it only seem like it’s developed in the last few years?  It actually stems from something that the United States has done.  That’s right, we caused our current situation with Iran.  And how did we do this?  By invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.  Seem like a big leap?  It’s really not.  Iran and Iraq have been bitter enemies of each other.  In the 1980s, they even fought a war against each other.  It was always touchy between the two countries and any spark could set them off.  After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the US and it’s allies propped up and supported Saddam’s regime in Iraq to use him as a regional buffer.  He just got a little too big for his pants by 1991 when he invaded Kuwait… leading to the first Gulf War.  So one must offer the question, if we hadn’t gone to war in Iraq in 2003 and Saddam was still in power, would we be facing the current situation with Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons.  Though I can’t predict alternate timelines and futures, I would tend to say no.  Saddam would never have allowed Iran to even get this far because it would have been a threat against his own regime and hold on power.  If necessary, he would have gone to war with them to stop them.  With him gone, there is no longer a buffer in the region between Iran’s goals and the rest of the world as there once had been.

So since Saddam would have gone to war with Iran to stop it, why shouldn’t the US and it’s allies do the same… as some Republican Presidential candidates have suggested?  Because it would probably do more harm than good.  If Saddam had invaded, it would have been one Islamic nation invading another.  No big deal overall.  If the US and it’s allies invaded, it would be seen as invading another Islamic country and being, as yet, more proof that we are against Islam (which we are not).  It actually could drive up recruitment for al Qaida and other terrorist organizations… which could come back to get us in the long run.  Our own national security could end up being threatened.

So what started Iran down the road of nuclear technology?  Only lately has been it become top headlines with the threat of the nation developing nuclear weapons.  In terms of the technology for power, that can be traced back to the United States.  That’s right, it was the US that started giving the Iranian government nuclear technology starting all the way back in 1957 by the Eisenhower administration under the name “Atoms for Peace”.  This would be continued until the 1979 revolution.  In the 1970s, France and Germany would also join the US in sending assistance to Iran’s nuclear program.

“After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete “nuclear fuel cycle” — reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.”  Washington Post (March 26, 2005)

I bring up the administration of President Ford for a specific reason.  There are some names from that administration that are tied to the administration of President George W. Bush when the issue with Iran began to unfold.  Richard [Dick] Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense for President Ford.  In the Bush administration, they were Vice-President and Secretary of Defense respectively.  And while Iran, which was then an ally in the 1970s, had close ties to the US government, it also had ties to US businesses such as Westinghouse and GE.  So now we know why the Bush administration didn’t want to talk about this issue very much.  And we basically created our own problem that we have today.  True, we can’t predict the future.  And in the 1950s, there would have been no way to predict what would have happened in 1979 and here in the 21st century.  But I’m pretty sure we should have seen the writing on the wall by the late 1970s… and we should have known what would happen if we removed Saddam from power in Iraq (though he was an evil man and didn’t deserve to be in power).

So how should the US and the United Nations deal with the situation in Iran now?  I think we should call their bluff about closing the Straight of Hormuz if we place more sanctions on them.  Place the sanctions and see what they do.  For them, closing the waterway might anger their own neighboring countries into taking action.  And I also think there would be a huge outcry from the rest of the world (not just the US)… and would end up hurting the Iranian economy more than it would hurt anyone else’s.  It could actually end up causing a bigger crisis among the people in their own country as we witnessed throughout the Arab world in 2011.  The people might revolt and depose of the current regime that has left them isolated in the world.

Though I have doubts sanctions can actually stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, I do feel like it’s the only alternative and suggest that we pursue it.  Going to war… in a nation that is already tired of being at war and has a massive debt problem is just not an option.  In my opinion, the inevitable is going to happen whether we want it to or not.  The best we can do is slow that progress down to a crawl and hope for a regime change that wants to be part of the global community.  The problem with Iran is it’s now the “big-dog” in the neighborhood.  It’s buffer to power is gone and the sky is the limit.  It just wants to fit in with the other big players of the world… the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Europe, North Korea… that already have nuclear weapons.  The problem is that their country is ruled by something along the lines of a “immature, hormonal teenager” who  have immediate “knee-jerk” reactions when they don’t get their way.  Anything is possible, but we must make sure that we are acting in concert with the international community.  This is not a path that we must go down on our own.  As I said… we are stuck somewhere between a rock and a hard place with this one.

LINKS:
Washington Post — March 25, 2005
Council on Foreign Relations
General Information  (especially the section on the 1970s)

After Iowa

So the Iowa caucus has come and gone for the 2012 election.  Does it really mean anything in the overall grand scheme of things?  Not really.  The Iowa voters don’t necessarily pick the candidate that will eventually be the nominee.  And when it comes to the voting demographic in Iowa, it does not come close to being an accurate representation of the overall national voting demographic.  Regardless, though, Iowa goes first… as it has since 1972.  And though it might not pick the winner all the time, it can definitely derail campaigns and make other soar.

Remember then-Senator Barack Obama (Dem) and former-Governor Mike Huckabee (Rep) in the 2008 primary?  Both of them were largely unknown and won their party’s caucus.  The difference, Obama, though losing in New Hampshire, was still able to ride his Iowa win to victory in other states and eventually to the nomination and to a general election victory.  Huckabee failed in New Hampshire, too, but wasn’t able to mount a successful campaign to stop John McCain from getting the nomination despite winning a few more states.

The Republican Presidential Candidates

What hurt Mike Huckabee then might play out again here in 2012.  Former-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney beat Former-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by 8-votes in Iowa.  Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in third.  Santorum nearly pulled off a Huckabee-style win getting the majority of his votes from the Christian conservatives/Evangelical Christian voters.  The Republican voting bloc in Iowa is overflowing with them.  The problem for Santorum is going to be the next battle… New Hampshire where Christian conservatives just aren’t very abundant.  If he can somehow survive a beating in New Hampshire, he has a chance in South Carolina and maybe parts of Florida (northern Florida).  But when the contest moves to Nevada, it’s again unlikely that he will win with those that aren’t his main voting bloc.  If he hasn’t derailed by then, that should be the mark.  His virtual-tie in Iowa only means he gets more media attention for now, but it doesn’t mean that he can get the nomination.  The Republican voting bloc sees him as to religious and too-far right wing.  He can get the Tea-Party and Christian conservative votes, but he won’t get the independent and moderate votes that he would need to win in November.

What about some other candidates.  Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has withdrawn after coming in 5th place.  Texas Governor Rick Perry went home to think about it but has now decided to fight to South Carolina.  Without a strong showing there, it will be over for him.  He might make it to Florida, but no chance after that unless he can make a huge comeback.  Former-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is on life support.  Unless he can show that there is some life in his campaign in New Hampshire and/or South Carolina, it will be over for him, too.  Again, he can’t get passed Florida without something bigger… and South Carolina is going to be his best bet to beating Mitt Romney and where he should concentrate (since New Hampshire is not possible for him).  After coming in third place, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is in a good place to make a difference.  He gets a very different demographic of the Republican party and even the independents.  It remains to be seen how far he can go.  His supporters are usually fairly faithful to him.  But his main downfall is that he doesn’t appeal to the core Republican voters.

Former-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney might have been left holding the victory torch by those 8-votes after Tuesday, and though Iowa doesn’t necessarily pick the eventual nominee, he is sitting pretty good right now.  In New Hampshire, he has a double-digit lead.  Though in 2008, Obama had a lead in Iowa but Hillary Clinton ended up winning the Democratic primary there, so nothing is set in stone in this last week.  Who could upset Romney? Congressman Ron Paul could surge up in the independent-minded state.  But there is one other candidate that has put everything at stake in New Hampshire.  He came in last in Iowa, but didn’t really campaign there at all.  Former-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. He’s a moderate and has been campaigning hard.  Though it will be hard for anyone to take down Romney’s double-digit lead in a week, Huntsman needs to have a good second-place finish to stay in the race.  If he doesn’t, I fear that his campaign will end.  If he can, and then can survive until Nevada in February, he might be able to best Romney.  The two Mormon candidates battling it out for that vote in the West where they are on Huntsman’s home turf.  All of that depends on his finishing in New Hampshire, though, and if he can pick up some momentum so he doesn’t get trounced in other states.  Again his biggest drawback is going to be that he’s a moderate and not a party extremist.

With Iowa now over, the nomination is Romney’s to lose.  He didn’t campaign there very much and wasn’t making a big play for it.  Yet, he still edged out a win.  And with New Hampshire being in his political back yard, the ball is in his court. It will be interesting to see now how long this race might go on.  It could all be “theoretically” over with Florida or Nevada… though mathematically, he’d still be far short of the number of delegates needed for the nomination.  It’s all about money to mount the campaign in each state, and he’s the one candidate sitting on it and the campaign infrastructure to keep going.

UPDATE: (1/19/2012)
Upon certifying the Iowa caucus votes from January 3, Rick Santorum won the state by 34-votes over Mitt Romney.

SIDENOTE:
President Obama was not challenged in the Democratic Iowa caucus and will receive all of his party’s delegates.

SITE NOTE:
Have you checked out the Election 2012 pages yet?  Start HERE and go through them.  And don’t forget to “like” us now on Facebook if you haven’t already.

Stare decisis

This entry really isn’t “for” or “against” anything.  Rather it’s to pose some deeper questions for you to consider.  These questions came to me after I had finished watching the movie “The Conspirator” which is based on the military trial of Mary Surratt.  For those who don’t know history (or at least don’t know American History that well), Mary Surratt was one of those found guilty of conspiring to kill President Abraham Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William Seward.  She was the first woman to be publicly executed in the US.  Her rights as a US citizen were violated.  She was not given a fair trial or a jury of her peers.  Instead, it was a military tribunal that would bring about her demise despite their being enough evidence for reasonable doubt.  But she was ruled an enemy combatant, and those in charge wanted to make sure people paid the price in the assassination of Lincoln.  Mostly, the only thing Mary Surratt was guilty of was that the conspirators (her son accused of being one as well… later found innocent in a civil trial by a jury of Northerners and Southerners) was that they convened at her boarding house.  Whether she actually knew what was being discussed is anyone’s guess.

That all happened in 1865.  Now let’s move up a year to 1866.  The Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan [71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2] that the application of military tribunals to citizens is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operational.  (click here)    By this ruling, Mary Surratt should have had a civilian trial and not been subjected to a military tribunal at all.  So why is all of this relevant to anything?  Let’s flip up now to the 21st century and the War on Terror.  Since this began after the attacks on 9/11, we have arrest and imprisoned countless individuals that have been suspect in being tied to terrorist organizations (such as al Qaida).  I’m not going to place innocence or guilt on any of them as I do not know the circumstances of their arrests and whatnot; however, it is plausible that some were accused of terrorist activities by others (especially in Afghanistan where tribal allegiance is key).  Under the administration of President George W. Bush, these individuals were subject to trial in a military tribunal by reason that they were terrorists… enemy combatants.  Then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned against the use of military tribunals and suggested civilian courts; however, since becoming President, he has upheld the strategy used by President Bush.

So why military tribunals and not civilian court as per the 1866 ruling?  One could argue that because most of the terrorist are from other countries that the 1866 Supreme Court ruling doesn’t apply to them.  But what about those that have been arrested that are US citizens (yes, there have been some over the years)?  A military tribunal is a way to “railroad” the case since it plays by different rules than a civilian court would do.  One major thing comes into play when talking about civilian courts… a trial by a jury of peers and human fallibility.  I consider it one thing since they both go together.

A couple of years ago, I was selected to sit on a jury in a case involving attempted armed robbery.  The jury needed a unanimous verdict to send the defendant free or to convict him.  After hearing both sides of the case, we began to deliberate.  Remember that under US law (US Constitution… referenced in Amendments 5, 6 & 11), a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  When we first took our vote in the jury room, some of us voted innocent and some of us voted guilty.  We began to discuss the evidence that was presented to us in the trial, and by the end, we were one vote short of convicting the man.  The one person who still thought that he was innocent held firm.  As a result, we were a hung jury and the trial had to go through again with a different jury.  Was he guilty or innocent?  To me, the evidence seemed to think that he was.  Does that mean he was?  Not at all.  Innocent people have been found guilty of crimes they haven’t done before and are let out of jail years after they were incarcerated.  In some cases, a person’s innocence is found out after they have been put to death by the state even.  The opposite has also happened where a guilty person has gone free for one reason or another.  This goes back to what I called “human infallibility” that I mentioned earlier.  Military tribunals have a different code of conduct than a civilian trial and no jury of peers.  Human infallibility still exists but only to the extent that those presiding over the tribunal have already made up their minds… and if the person is seen as “evil” enough, the entire proceeding could be weighted to find a guilty verdict… whether the person actually is or not.

So now a two-pronged question.  Should those accused of being terrorists (or links to terrorist organizations) from other countries be subject to the 1866 Supreme Court ruling?  And what about those that are US citizens?  Concerning the latter question, the answer would seem to be quite simple.  The ruling in 1866 would seem to apply that if they are US citizens (even if deemed an enemy combatant) that they are still to be guaranteed a trial in a civilian court.  The more complex answer comes to the former question.  When we, as civilians, travel to a foreign nation, we are subject to their laws and their justice system.  The same goes for any person that travels to the US from another nation.  And I do realize that there is a difference between speeding on a highway, murdering someone, and committing an act of terror.  This goes to a question that I raised in a couple of blog entries (here and here) … What constitutes an act of terror?  Going beyond a dictionary definition, there gets to be several muddled interpretations.  What can history teach us in this situation with this kind of question?  How far (if at all relevant) does the 1866 Supreme Court ruling go?  Where is it that we draw the line as a society?

SITE NOTE:
I want to wish all of you a happy and safe new year.  We are already geared up for the 2012 elections and ready for things to begin in earnest. Make sure to check out those pages as they will be updated as things unfold.

Americans Elect

It is no secret that the electorate here in United States is not happy with our government.  It’s not so much how are government is set up that is the problem, it’s the two political parties that dominate the landscape.  It has devolved into a duocracy.  One has to be a Democrat or a Republican to seek office within Congress or to run for President.  Every once in awhile, an Independent candidate can sneak into a seat in the House of Representatives.  But the two major parties cater to one set demographic each… their core constituents.  This leaves moderates in the parties and those that are independents left on the outside.  It is only during a general election that candidates will change their tone and move toward the center to pick up that demographic which is crucial for victory.

Seeing upon how little our government has been working as of late, and on how “compromise” has become a dirty word, no one seems to be listening to the voice of the people and what we say.  (see previous blog)  Is this a new thing?  Not really.  But we have grown weary of the inaction by our government to step up and take control over the big issues of the day… regulations that make sense, fair taxes, term limits for Congress, cuts in government spending and bringing down the debt, and entitlement reforms… among many other things.  To each of us, each of these things means something different and the solutions are just as diverse as the population.  However which way you look at them, the elected officials usually dig their heals into their party platforms and refuse to budge on anything (except maybe a crumb here and there).  It gets nothing accomplished because no one wants to work together and get these issues taken care of.  They are afraid of appearing weak in front of their voting base, though in the end, they look week to a larger portion of Americans.

Back in May 2010, a new poll showed that 31% of Americans favored a third political party.  This may in part explain the rise of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party during that year’s election cycle.  However, favor for the Tea Party has fallen since then.  My guess to that is because they are seen as the primary obstacle for getting anything done because they refuse to work with anyone.  They are basically the children within Congress.  You either have to play by their rules or they aren’t playing.  My overall point, though, is that Americans are growing more and more eager to support a third-party candidate… someone to shake up the system.

Third-party candidates usually don’t fare well on the national scene.  Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 as an Independent, and Theodore Roosevelt came in 2nd place (in front of current President William Howard Taft) in 1912 as Progressive.  Other candidates have just become spoilers to the main two candidates, and that is seen as one of the biggest drawbacks to supporting a third-party candidate.  If a candidate doesn’t come from the Democratic or Republican parties, they are seen us unelectable, so rather than support the candidate that they really want, a voter will go vote for the candidate of the major party that they want so the other guy doesn’t win.  And to me, that is no way to be voting at all.  With the call for a third-party the highest its been in years and maybe decades, the time is now for voters to actually vote for a different party other than a Democrat or Republican.  The other hard part is that Democrats and Republicans are usually guaranteed spots on every state ballot (and DC) automatically.  A third-party candidate has to file in each state and go through each state’s rules for filing.  This is something that gears the process toward the two main parties.

Even the primary process for determining who the nominee will be to run for President for each party disenfranchises people.  Some are closed to only those that are within the party.  And the process is aimed at front runners, narrowing the field, and choosing from those that only wish to seek the office.  Independents are left out… and it should be us that determines who we want to run our country.  Back in the founding days of our nation, men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc., didn’t actively run for President.  In fact, most said they didn’t want to be; however, if the people chose them, they would do as they were asked in service of their country.  To run for President as we do now was seen an un-gentleman-like and the first sign that someone shouldn’t be President.  (They usually had surrogates do the campaigning for them so they could keep their hands clean.)

There is something new for next year though.  It’s called Americans Elect (website), and it’s determined to give the people more of a say in an actual third-party candidate.  They are listening to the people over the importance of issues and where we stand on them.  And they are already hard at work to get their candidate on the ballot in every state and DC.  There are only certain states that will allow a candidate to file to get on a ballot this early, but Americans Elect are already on  in 11 states and almost done in California.  The rest are ready to filed next year once they are able to.  This would clear the way for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot in each state and remove a major obstacle.  The other hitch is this… whoever runs for President and Vice President on this ticket, must come from different sides of the aisle (Democrat and Republican or vice versa, Democrat and Independent or vice versa, Republican and Independent or vice versa.)  It’s an interesting concept… and one that is trying to listen to the populace and rise above political ideology.  Third party candidates are considered as well (i.e. Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.).  For the moderates, independents, and those wanting a real third political party, this might just be the option.  The nominating process is done by all the people online… and even the nominating convention is done online rather than wasting tons of money at a four-day event.  Even the two major political parties that make up our duocracy are taking notice of this new movement and are already addressing it.

Regardless of which candidate any of us choose to support, I think it’s important to remember that we should have more choices than just the two party system.  No, I don’t think we should have a ballot that has so many names that it becomes a pamphlet, but still more than two.  And it is not right not to vote for a third-party candidate just because you don’t want a different candidate to win of a major party.  It’s time we wake up and start voting for candidates that we actually want to vote for and give them a chance at victory instead of just throwing our vote away to a major political party/ideology that has shut out most of the voices in this country.  As I have watched the Republican primary unfold, I have seen and heard nothing that has given me any confidence that any of them are up to the task that would be set upon them should they win.  And as for the Democratic primary, there isn’t even a choice since no one is challenging the current President… which again leaves even parts of its own party without a voice.  This is not the way we should be electing our leaders here in the 21st century, and it is time to shake up the system.  I will be watching the Americans Elect process next year as it unfolds… as I will be doing with the other parties as well.  This could be a major opportunity to jump start a real third-party onto the national scene and bring about candidates that we want rather than ones that are just out their seeking it on their own and begging us for a vote that means nothing to them in the end.

LINK:
Americans Elect 

ARTICLE:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/group-clears-path-for-a-third-party-ticket/

SITE NOTE:
Have you checked out the new 2012 Election pages here on In Declaration…?  We have the overview page which will list the candidates and other information, and we have two sets of Primary/Caucus pages that list each primary/caucus by date.  So check them out today if you haven’t already.  All pages will be kept up to date as the 2012 election unfolds.